On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 17:24 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 16:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > [...]
> [...]
I apologize for that.
On 18/06/2023 21:42, Miles Rout wrote:
On 19 June 2023 3:24:50 am NZST, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 16:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Do you remember "Heartbleed"? We owe that to someone who has
successfully completed his doctorate with this achievement. A PhD
student who overest
On 19 June 2023 3:24:50 am NZST, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
>On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 16:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> Do you remember "Heartbleed"? We owe that to someone who has
>> successfully completed his doctorate with this achievement. A PhD
>> student who overestimates his skills can be worse th
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 16:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Do you remember "Heartbleed"? We owe that to someone who has
> successfully completed his doctorate with this achievement. A PhD
> student who overestimates his skills can be worse than a traitor.
"Der Quellcode, der den Fehler aufweist, wur
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 10:53 -0400, 2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com
wrote:
> We could argue the merits of static vs. dynamic linking, but neither of
> us is an expert, so that argument would likely be sub-optimal. ;-)
That's incorrect. Everybody is an expert. It's possible to audit a
single sha
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 15:24 +0100, Polarian wrote:
> So I don't find the entire "Oh the library can be replaced with a
> malicious one" to be a good reason.
At least the one and only shared library needs to be replaced, a task
that isn't that easy to do, while the 300 outdated libraries of
differ
Projects start because they scratch some personal itch, not usually because
said dev has desire to become a packager or provide tech support to strangers.
Even proper documentation is rare, much less proper packaging.
Preventing dependency hell via flatpak is one thing, but devs are even against
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Polarian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So the TL;DR is Go packaging is currently a mess.
If this is what you managed to gather from my reply engaging further is not
worth my time.
--
Morten Linderud
PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Okay, so here is the authorative answer to this thread.
`golang-` is originally meant for source-dependencies in an effort to devendor
upstream. This effor was abandoned in 2019 as Go modules became a thing.
If you are curious about the naming scheme, see the Fedora and Debian package
guidelines.
I went through and checked all the go-* packages, they are all executable
binaries not modules, hence they use the name of the project, which is as per
guidelines.
The golang-* packages seem to be using an interesting naming scheme. They do
use the full module name but strip out the TLD - hence
Hello,
> Is there a rational for naming packages "golang-golang-"* ?
I don't know whether it's a good reason, but there's definitely a reason.
There are basically two kinds of Go packages with a golang-* prefix in
the official (non-AUR) Arch repos:
- golang-golang-x-* packages, whose Upstream URL
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 08:15 +, paul.mirkwood wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this is intended as a joke
Hi,
my apologies for the bad satire.
Is there a rational for naming packages "golang-golang-"* ?
Probably naming packages just "go-"* is suboptimal, but actually the
language is called "Go"
Hello,
> "C" is just a letter of the alphabet ;), much likely nobody using Arch
> Linux does confuse the letter of the alphabet with the programming
> language, hence we don't call it "clang". I'm not convinced that "Go"
> is a verb. Maybe it's an "abbreviation". It's probably both in one.
>
> Ou
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 09:27 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> "C" is just a letter of the alphabet
and/or a hex numeral system number :D.
A
B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_(programming_language)
C
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 03:47 +0100, Polarian wrote:
> go was just its shortened name but its
> a verb so can be confused when using it as a noun.
"C" is just a letter of the alphabet ;), much likely nobody using Arch
Linux does confuse the letter of the alphabet with the programming
language, henc
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 08:55 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> faked pseudo-Asian
My apologies for the "double negative"/"tautology".
I must have been a little emotional after reading package names starting
with "extra/golang-golang-".
Hi,
when doing a command line package search for "go" it returns many
unrelated packages, such as
extra/evolution-bogofilter 3.48.3-1
Spam filtering for Evolution, using Bogofilter
so there is a point in using "golang". OTOH, when I look at the naming
scheme of the Go packages installe
On Sat, 2023-06-17 at 21:11 -0400, Tom Swartz wrote:
> Holy smokes that's racist as hell.
Again, it's not part of my vocabulary! In addition it is very difficult
to be more misanthropic than Google!
On Sat, 2023-06-17 at 21:11 -0400, Tom Swartz wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 21:04 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > "To me "golang"
> > sounds similar to "ching chang chong",
>
>
> Holy smokes that's racist as hell.
>
> Mods?
>
Hi.
as already said before "ching chang chong", is not part of my
vocab
On Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 21:04 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> "To me "golang"
> sounds similar to "ching chang chong",
Holy smokes that's racist as hell.
Mods?
Racist phrasing aside, The programming language here is often referred to
as "Golang" because of its former domain name, golang.org, despite it
PS:
"It is often referred to as Golang because of its former domain name,
golang.org, but its proper name is Go." -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)
On Sat, 2023-06-17 at 21:57 +0100, Polarian wrote:
> The naming for go packages seems inconsistent, I can see both go-* and
> golang-*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)#/media/File:Go_Logo_Blue.svg
Nobody says "Englishlang", "Germanlang" or "C++lang". To me "golang"
sounds
22 matches
Mail list logo
