| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:14 PM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 9/12/19 5:23 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Putting the dependencies in RDEPEND means users get stuck with yet |
| 6 |
> > another copy of the code installed, in addition to the copy that is |
| 7 |
> > statically linked into all reverse dependencies. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > It's not a very good solution to the problem. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> No argument there. The elegant solution to static linking is to not do |
| 13 |
> it. But I guess that's off the table? So now we're trying to find the |
| 14 |
> best not very good solution. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Well I think you end up with a weird tradeoff here. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Most people who build and package go-based packages use static compilation, |
| 20 |
so we could in theory build dynamically linked executables, but then we |
| 21 |
diverge from the upstream practice. |
| 22 |
Maybe this is the right approach, but I think its a bunch of extra |
| 23 |
engineering work (to make things build dynamically) and will be pretty |
| 24 |
different from what upstream is expecting. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nr-TQHw_er6GOQRsF6T43GGhFDelrAP0NqSS_00RgZQ/edit |
| 27 |
describes |
| 28 |
the new execution modes; it even discusses this very topic! |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
"This mode is mainly intended to support distro builders. They can |
| 31 |
distribute Go packages or groups of packages as shared libraries, and can |
| 32 |
thus update all Go programs by updating the shared libraries, without |
| 33 |
requiring the programs to be relinked." |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I wonder who pushed for this to Ian, and whether distros ended up using |
| 36 |
this kind of target? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-A |
Archives