On 13 April 2016 at 17:03, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > * Michael Hudson-Doyle: > >> There is another approach to the static linking issue, which is to >> start using dynamic linking instead. It's implemented upstream for >> most architectures now (only mips64 le/be and ppc64 be missing I >> think). I'm going to be working on starting to use dynamic linking >> during the next cycle of Ubuntu development, and I'd certainly be >> interested in getting it going for Debian too. (the timeframes re: >> stretch release look reasonable for this). > > Can you explain a bit more how dynamic linking would help us to > determine what we need to rebuild?
Well, some of the time, rebuilding won't be needed, hopefully. Also, the way my prototype dh-golang change works, a libgolang* package Provides a value that contains the abi hash and dependencies depend on the hash value (via dpkg-shlibdeps), so in that case figuring out how much to rebuild is a case of "build stuff until britney stops shouting at you about making packages uninstallable" (I don't know if that's practical for the way you build security updates though). > I expect that dynamic linking will complicate matters because we will > have to rebuild library packages in dependency order. I don't see how > Go shared objects can provide a stable ABI. Over releases, no, I think you're right, but I really hope that security fixes can at least sometimes preserve ABI (the crypto fixes in Go 1.6.1 would not break ABI, for example). Cheers, mwh _______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
