| 1 |
On 9/12/19 12:42 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> In general I don't see bundling as a major problem. In the land of |
| 4 |
> dynamic binaries, it's a big advantage because you can upgrade libfoo |
| 5 |
> and all consumers of libfoo get the upgrade upon process restart. This |
| 6 |
> isn't true for most go programs which are statically linked; so you end |
| 7 |
> up asking yourself "why should I make a package for every go module?" |
| 8 |
> One obvious answer is that portage then tracks what packages are |
| 9 |
> consuming a given module and you can plausibly write a tool that does |
| 10 |
> things like "moduleX has a security update, please recompile all |
| 11 |
> packages that DEPEND on moduleX" which seems like a tool people would want. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Subslots do this already. Portage does this already. We have this "tool |
| 15 |
that people would want," but only if developers can be bothered to |
| 16 |
package things. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> [0] I feel like this is a common idea in Gentoo throughout. Anything new |
| 20 |
> is bad. Anything that violates norms is bad. Anything that violates the |
| 21 |
> model we have been using for 20 years is bad. I wish people were more |
| 22 |
> open to have a discussion without crapping on new ideas quite so thoroughly. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This is computer *science*. Some ideas are just wrong, and nothing of |
| 25 |
value is gained by trying not to hurt the feelings of the flat-earthers. |
Archives