| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:52 PM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 9/12/19 12:42 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > In general I don't see bundling as a major problem. In the land of |
| 6 |
> > dynamic binaries, it's a big advantage because you can upgrade libfoo |
| 7 |
> > and all consumers of libfoo get the upgrade upon process restart. This |
| 8 |
> > isn't true for most go programs which are statically linked; so you end |
| 9 |
> > up asking yourself "why should I make a package for every go module?" |
| 10 |
> > One obvious answer is that portage then tracks what packages are |
| 11 |
> > consuming a given module and you can plausibly write a tool that does |
| 12 |
> > things like "moduleX has a security update, please recompile all |
| 13 |
> > packages that DEPEND on moduleX" which seems like a tool people would want. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Subslots do this already. Portage does this already. We have this "tool |
| 17 |
> that people would want," but only if developers can be bothered to |
| 18 |
> package things. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Portage only handles rebuilds for slot-operator deps in RDEPEND. It |
| 21 |
ignores slot-operators in DEPEND. |
Archives