On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:12:05AM +1200, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> On 8 July 2016 at 20:03, Potter, Tim (HPE Linux Support)
> <timothy.pot...@hpe.com> wrote:
> > On 7 Jul 2016, at 12:40 PM, Martín Ferrari <tin...@tincho.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06/07/16 20:59, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> >>
> >>> What's the current status? Is there technical progress compared to what
> >>> was
> >>> discussed in April? The freeze is coming really close and we can't support
> >>> the status quo for stretch.
> >>
> >> The discussion stalled at that point. AFAIK, there is no technical
> >> solution for this. The best we could do is to have easier ways to track
> >> dependency chains, but that does not change the fact that all golang
> >> applications are still statically built, and so would require rebuilds
> >> when security bugs are discovered and fixed.
> >>
> >> I understand this is problematic, but not sure we can do anything about
> >> it at this point.
> >
> > Hi everyone. I've done a small amount of research into the
> > buildmode=c-shared
> > and the dynlink option and they look good on paper. Has anyone examined
> > these
> > options more seriously?
>
> Well, using them in Ubuntu was the reason Canonical paid me to
> implement them, so yes... I'm am currently in the process of starting
> to use these features in Ubuntu. My plan, such as it was, was to use
> them in Ubuntu through the 16.10 cycle and then propose the changes to
> Debian too, assuming they work out OK.
What does the provide specifically? Dynamic linking similar to what we currently
have for library code written in C?
Cheers,
Moritz
_______________________________________________
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
