On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:30:25 -0400
Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
I recently found a need for the CoffeeScript compiler[0] that runs on
top of NodeJS. Its test suite requires a bunch of other javascript
packages, and I wound up packaging enough of them to test
CoffeeScript.
In the
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 04:48:29PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/30/2015 03:08 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
Thinking about this, there may be a third option. This would take a
slight reworking of the golang-build.eclass, but that is easy to do,
and it would possibly remove the subslot from
On 06/30/2015 07:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 04:48:29PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/30/2015 03:08 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
Thinking about this, there may be a third option. This would take a
slight reworking of the golang-build.eclass, but that is easy to do,
and
On 06/30/2015 03:56 AM, Ian Delaney wrote:
Is this what I prompted about a year or more ago, and drew no interest
in pursuing the npm path? I cited an eclass called npm.eclass in a
dev's overlay. The conclusion was that using npm to install anything
competed with portage at a level that
On 06/29/2015 11:25 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
Considering that Go binaries are statically linked, you'll end up with a
bunch of Go libraries installed that you don't need during run-time.
They'll eventually give this up, because everyone does when their
language starts seeing serious use. I
All,
we have digressed a bit, so I want to bring the discussion back to what
my main concerns are about this issue.
1. Should we bundle Go packages with Go software?
If we do, except for the Go standard library which is part of
dev-lang/go, do we need to bother with installing Go sources and
On 06/30/2015 08:49 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 06/29/2015 11:25 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
Considering that Go binaries are statically linked, you'll end up with a
bunch of Go libraries installed that you don't need during run-time.
They'll eventually give this up, because everyone does
On 06/30/2015 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 06/30/2015 02:12 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
Suppose ten years from now everything is written in Go. I have 500
statically linked Go packages on my system, all of whose dependencies
were built and compiled-in at install time. Now someone finds a
On 06/30/2015 11:12 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
As I mentioned in my reply to William [1], we might invent a notion of
having one ebuild execute another ebuild in order to install static
dependencies into a temporary build directory. That way, static
libraries would be built on-demand, and
On 06/30/2015 02:12 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
Suppose ten years from now everything is written in Go. I have 500
statically linked Go packages on my system, all of whose dependencies
were built and compiled-in at install time. Now someone finds a remote
root vulnerability in the go-openssl
On 06/30/2015 08:35 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
we have digressed a bit, so I want to bring the discussion back to what
my main concerns are about this issue.
1. Should we bundle Go packages with Go software?
If we do, except for the Go standard library which is part of
dev-lang/go,
FWIW, I also bumped into this in my previous job.
I even wrote this (https://github.com/neurogeek/g-npm) which is incomplete
but saved me a bunch of time creating a crazy amount of npm ebuilds.
kinda rant
My experience is, this isn't worth it. npm is a mess, is
maintainer-unfriendly (although it
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53:58AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/30/2015 08:35 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
we have digressed a bit, so I want to bring the discussion back to what
my main concerns are about this issue.
1. Should we bundle Go packages with Go software?
If we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/2015 05:25, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/29/2015 07:24 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 06/29/2015 07:44 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
Having faced the exact same problem I have to say I agree 100% with
Zac. I'd like to say that Gentoo needs this
On 06/30/2015 01:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53:58AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/30/2015 08:35 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
we have digressed a bit, so I want to bring the discussion back to what
my main concerns are about this issue.
1. Should we bundle Go
On 06/30/2015 03:08 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:34:52PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/30/2015 01:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
I don't really see what the competing concerns are in this case.
The competing concern is that un-bundling has some possibly undesirable
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:34:52PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/30/2015 01:30 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53:58AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/30/2015 08:35 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
we have digressed a bit, so I want to bring the discussion back to what
Hi Daniel,
On 06/20/2015 05:35 AM, Daniel zlg Campbell wrote:
Sorry for not replying sooner; my client didn't seem to reflect folder
updates...
Are there any urgent bugs right now? I'm moving tomorrow and won't be
able to tend to them if so, but I am interested in taking
maintainership of
18 matches
Mail list logo
