On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:52 AM Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 9/12/19 12:42 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > In general I don't see bundling as a major problem. In the land of > > dynamic binaries, it's a big advantage because you can upgrade libfoo > > and all consumers of libfoo get the upgrade upon process restart. This > > isn't true for most go programs which are statically linked; so you end > > up asking yourself "why should I make a package for every go module?" > > One obvious answer is that portage then tracks what packages are > > consuming a given module and you can plausibly write a tool that does > > things like "moduleX has a security update, please recompile all > > packages that DEPEND on moduleX" which seems like a tool people would > want. > > > > Subslots do this already. Portage does this already. We have this "tool > that people would want," but only if developers can be bothered to > package things. > Sure; and I listed this as an option. It's certainly not the only option. > > > > [0] I feel like this is a common idea in Gentoo throughout. Anything new > > is bad. Anything that violates norms is bad. Anything that violates the > > model we have been using for 20 years is bad. I wish people were more > > open to have a discussion without crapping on new ideas quite so > thoroughly. > > This is computer *science*. Some ideas are just wrong, and nothing of > value is gained by trying not to hurt the feelings of the flat-earthers. > Er, I'm fairly sure computer *science* has not conclusively proven that dynamic binaries are somehow superior to static binaries. -A
