| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:52 AM 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 |
| 14 |
> want. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Subslots do this already. Portage does this already. We have this "tool |
| 18 |
> that people would want," but only if developers can be bothered to |
| 19 |
> package things. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Sure; and I listed this as an option. It's certainly not the only option. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> > [0] I feel like this is a common idea in Gentoo throughout. Anything new |
| 28 |
> > is bad. Anything that violates norms is bad. Anything that violates the |
| 29 |
> > model we have been using for 20 years is bad. I wish people were more |
| 30 |
> > open to have a discussion without crapping on new ideas quite so |
| 31 |
> thoroughly. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> This is computer *science*. Some ideas are just wrong, and nothing of |
| 34 |
> value is gained by trying not to hurt the feelings of the flat-earthers. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Er, I'm fairly sure computer *science* has not conclusively proven that |
| 38 |
dynamic binaries are somehow superior to static binaries. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-A |
Archives