Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] dev-vcs/hub: migrate to go-module.eclass

[Patrick McLean]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:29:20 -0400
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote:

> On 9/13/19 5:19 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:58:08 -0400
> > Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote:
> >
> >> What kind of math would convince you that an idea with all "cons"
> >> and no "pros" is bad?
> >
> > Is "upstream tooling doesn't work without static compilation" or
> > "built packages tend to need exact version matching at runtime to
> > work" ( which necessitates massive-scale multi-slotting, where
> > every version of every packaged "thing" has a co-existing slot ) a
> > problem for you?
>
> I see it as a problem, but not one that has to be my problem. I don't
> see it as a foregone conclusion that we have to package every piece of
> software -- no matter how bad -- and distribute it with the OS that I
> use to do my banking.
>
I don't think anyone here has suggested that any go packages are
installed in the stage3 tarballs, or included in profiles. Something's
presence in the tree does not mean that you are required to install it.
A package's presence in the tree really has little to zero effect on
any user that does not use the package. If you do not install the
package, it will have zero effect on your banking.

I also want to point out that the Gentoo packages for Firefox,
Chromium, and Webkit all have a _lot_ of bundled dependencies and
absolutely do static linking internally. If you are using a browser to
do your banking, you are almost certainly using static linking, even
without the presence of code written in golang.

> These languages are badly implemented, and very little of value is
> written in them. If their developers ever hit 2+ users, I'm sure
> they'll realize that everyone else was right back in the 1970s, and
> fix the design. But in the meantime, this stuff belongs in an
> overlay. Lowering our standards until they match upstream's is
> antithetical to how a distribution is supposed to improve my life.

Despite your (and my) objections to it's approach to linking, golang is
a very popular language these days with some very popular packages
written in it. Docker and Kubernetes immediately come to mind, but
there are many others. The argument "I don't use, and I dislike the
implementation language, so no one should use it" is not a very
compelling argument.

These are very popular packages, that users and developers absolutely
want to be available in Gentoo. Given this fact, and the fact that
there are Gentoo developers who want these packages enough that they
will maintain the packages, they absolutely do belong in the tree.