Thanks for the patch, it’s now merged and uploaded. I’d prefer if you could send such patches in a bug report instead of to mailing lists which I don’t actively read :). In fact, I’d say it’s long overdue to make this package team-maintained. The repository is already in collab-maint, so if you want to make the necessary changes, please just go ahead.
With regards to the original post, I think we have the same issue that the haskell packaging community has, since they have the same linking model. I’ve talked to Joachim Breitner (nomeata) about this a couple years ago and he mentioned they have some tooling which addresses the issue in a sufficient way. I’d suggest to tackle the problem the same way for Go, and maybe share some tools if applicable. That said, I won’t have time or motivation to do any of the work required for this, so volunteers are very welcome. On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle < michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote: > On 13 April 2016 at 21:05, Michael Hudson-Doyle > <michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 13 April 2016 at 17:07, Tianon Gravi <admwig...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12 April 2016 at 21:39, Michael Hudson-Doyle > >> <michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote: > >>> We could do it without 1) and the consequent re-uploading of every go > >>> library by using dpkg-query --search a lot, which would be slow I > >>> guess, but maybe could be done as a fallback? > >> > >> I still asking dpkg about file/directory package ownership should be > >> our primary means of generating this field -- the metadata that dpkg > >> itself tracks about "which package provided > >> /usr/share/gocode/src/abc/xyz which I just compiled against" will > >> always be correct (due to the fact that it really is the single proper > >> source of truth for such information), where some arbitrary metadata > >> we add not only clutters up the package metadata as has been > >> discussed, but much more importantly will have a tendency to "drift" > >> from the truth, which is something that IMO we shouldn't tolerate for > >> a field whose primary purpose is knowing when it's necessary to > >> rebuild, especially for security fixes. Even for really large > >> packages like Docker (to choose an example that I know off the top of > >> my head is reasonably hefty WRT deps) we're only talking about maybe > >> ~200 of these queries at the outside end, and only at build-time, and > >> only once per build, which IMO is in the realm of reasonable to avoid > >> yet again uploading a minor fix to every package (moving the metadata > >> over to the binary packages when we still haven't added the existing > >> source package metadata to all of them yet) with information that will > >> have a potential for drifting from the truth or for being too limited > >> (single package providing multiple namespaces after a repo move, for > >> example). > > > > Yes, all that seems fair. Something like this? > > http://paste.ubuntu.com/15806327/ -- it's pretty terrible perl, but > > it's actually arguably simpler than what dh_golang does already! > > FWIW, I sent a better version of this patch: > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/Week-of-Mon-20160411/004304.html > > Cheers, > mwh > -- Best regards, Michael
_______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers