golang (2:1.5-0ubuntu1) wily; urgency=medium
* New upstream release.
- Drop debian/patches/disable-duffzero-ppc64el.patch
* Breaks/Replaces: older golang-go.tools (LP: 1486560)
** Changed in: golang (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification be
Here's a more limited diff that retains the deletion of the syso files.
For the record here are all the changes between the rc1 release and
final: https://github.com/golang/go/compare/go1.5rc1...go1.5
They are all bugfix releases, but in any case I had already talked to a
release team member (ste
On 26 August 2015 at 03:15, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
wrote:
> My concern isn't so much in that these binaries come with the source --
> it sounds suboptimal, but it's not quite as bad as shipping binary blobs
> we haven't built ourselves...
Right, but as I tried to say, this is not a new thing, we
NB: it only requires a feature freeze exception if it's a featureful
upload. if the differences between rc1 and final are just bugfixes, no
need to enumerate.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
** Changed in: golang (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Triaged
** Changed in: golang (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Medium
** Changed in: golang (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Michael Hudson-Doyle (mwhudson)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
B
Ah, and I almost forgot, please describe the changes since RC 1 (from
the upstream changelog or wherever) since this will require a feature
freeze exception.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bu
My concern isn't so much in that these binaries come with the source --
it sounds suboptimal, but it's not quite as bad as shipping binary blobs
we haven't built ourselves...
That's the main issue I have with it and with removing the line from
rules which deletes .syso files (note that we probably
cypermox said by email:
> it seems to me like not removing the .syso files, which are both
> arch-dependent and prebuilt binaries we cannot verify have been
> built with the source provided (even if there is strong suspicion
> that they were) is the wrong approach to fixing these
> tests.
This i
