| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:56 PM Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:14 PM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> On 9/12/19 5:23 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > Putting the dependencies in RDEPEND means users get stuck with yet |
| 10 |
>> > another copy of the code installed, in addition to the copy that is |
| 11 |
>> > statically linked into all reverse dependencies. |
| 12 |
>> > |
| 13 |
>> > It's not a very good solution to the problem. |
| 14 |
>> > |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> No argument there. The elegant solution to static linking is to not do |
| 17 |
>> it. But I guess that's off the table? So now we're trying to find the |
| 18 |
>> best not very good solution. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> Well I think you end up with a weird tradeoff here. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Most people who build and package go-based packages use static |
| 24 |
> compilation, so we could in theory build dynamically linked executables, |
| 25 |
> but then we diverge from the upstream practice. |
| 26 |
> Maybe this is the right approach, but I think its a bunch of extra |
| 27 |
> engineering work (to make things build dynamically) and will be pretty |
| 28 |
> different from what upstream is expecting. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nr-TQHw_er6GOQRsF6T43GGhFDelrAP0NqSS_00RgZQ/edit describes |
| 32 |
> the new execution modes; it even discusses this very topic! |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> "This mode is mainly intended to support distro builders. They can |
| 35 |
> distribute Go packages or groups of packages as shared libraries, and can |
| 36 |
> thus update all Go programs by updating the shared libraries, without |
| 37 |
> requiring the programs to be relinked." |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Another thing I neglected to point out is that even with these dynamic libs |
| 41 |
you end up with toolchain problems. Once you upgrade you go toolchain (goN |
| 42 |
and go-N+1) and build a new libfoo with go-N+1, it becomes incompatible |
| 43 |
with binaries built with go-N. Other languages have this problem as well, |
| 44 |
but its not great and it's a great recipe to hose a system while you are |
| 45 |
rebuilding your go programs after an upgrade. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> I wonder who pushed for this to Ian, and whether distros ended up using |
| 50 |
> this kind of target? |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> -A |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
Archives