3 ms·
This is ironic, because Go in much easier to build than C or C++, especially since the introduction of Go modules. Perhaps this "untangling" isn't the best ide
by Carpetsmoker 6y ago
This is ironic, because Go in much easier to build than C or C++, especially since the introduction of Go modules.
Perhaps this "untangling" isn't the best idea, at least not always?
- m4rtink 6y agoUnbundling is often necessary due to these issues: - the bundled things might have unclear licensing - bundling stuff that is available in the repos is sub optimal, as the repo version will be updated for security issues while the bundled version will not - you can use some mechanism to mark what stuff is bundled in a package, but then you need to make sure the bundled thing is patched and rebuild each thing bundling it, where with system wide dependency you just update that and you are done
- Carpetsmoker 6y agoIt's pretty rare there are parts with "unclear" licensing. Does it happen? Sure. But "often"? I'm fairly sure that almost all projects are receptive to updates for dependencies with security issues; I don't see why a distro needs to "untangle" anything for them. > with system wide dependency you just update that and you are done Unless the system-wide update won't work with your program. The entire point of the Go tooling is that you can reliably and consistently build your software, and replacing random parts to create a weird unsupported (by the actual developers anyway) version is something the Go tooling was never designed to support: it goes exactly against what it was designed to do. Hence my previous comment: perhaps this isn't the best of ideas.
- m4rtink 6y agoThis talk (from 2011 but still very relevant today) mentions some if the licensing and other issues package maintainers have to face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRk97h1FLow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRk97h1FLow