On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:45:07AM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> Alright, I've applied the changes and updated to go-1.11.
> Should we remove go-1.9 now?
If all of our Go packages are still working with Go 1.11, then it should
be safe to remove Go 1.9.
We should take care to handle the
Alright, I've applied the changes and updated to go-1.11.
Should we remove go-1.9 now?
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 09:48:50PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> In my patchset, there are 2 kinds of fixes:
>
> - Disabling tests because Go 1.11 test policies are stricter and some lax code
> from before does not pass anymore.
> For this issue, upstream should fix their packages. As far
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 09:09:24PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> Sure, but isn't this too much a hassle (and more pollution added to the
> package
> namespace) for a temporary workaround?
It's a matter of taste :)
> Shouldn't we focus on fixing the cache bug in the build system instead?
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 05:22:44PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> Hmm, actually it seems that go1.9 is not able to build a package against
> dependencies built with go1.11.
Yeah, I don't think there is any notion of backwards compatibility
there.
> For Demlo, that would mean that I need to add
Oh, cool, I did not know about the #:go key!
Great, I'll udpate the patchset then!
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 06:33:53PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> > If most of the Go packages are ready for Go 1.11, we could make it the
> > dfeault and then use Go 1.9 for the packages that are lagging behind. Or
> > vice versa.
>
> How do you do that?
The default Go is defined in ((guix
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 06:04:54PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> Actually bug 32919 matters, it breaks Demlo and all packages that depend on
> packages that need special compilation flags (e.g. -tags "xyz").
>
> Concretely, say A depends on B and B must be built with "-tags xyz".
> When
Also, if we move to go 1.11, should we remove go 1.9? Considering there is the
slowdown mentioned in https://bugs.gnu.org/32919, maybe it would be smarter to
keep 1.9 around?
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 04:02:46PM +0200, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
>
> > First, the implementation of go-build-system is really inefficient for
> > Go 1.11, especially since things compiled with Go 1.11 keep a huge
> > run-time dependency graph:
>
> Is it _only_ inefficient because of issue 32949
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 01:40:26PM +0200, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> Is there a good reason for sticking to 1.9 or should we update to 1.11?
There are two reasons.
First, the implementation of go-build-system is really inefficient for
Go 1.11, especially since things compiled with Go 1.11 keep a
> First, the implementation of go-build-system is really inefficient for
> Go 1.11, especially since things compiled with Go 1.11 keep a huge
> run-time dependency graph:
Is it _only_ inefficient because of issue 32949 or is there another reason?
> https://bugs.gnu.org/32949
>
> That could
Correction: gx itself does not need Go 1.11, but go-ipfs requires that gx be
compiled with Go 1.11+.
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
13 matches
Mail list logo
