On 2 August 2017 at 12:16, Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 12:47 PM Florin Pățan <florinpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would never put anyone to the trouble of compiling Go themselves, so >> it's not clear why you are suggesting that. > > From where comes the assumption that it's a trouble? I was not suggesting > anything, but while we are at it, I think that installing from sources is by > far the easiest way how to install Go. Precompiled binaries are inevitably > depending on assumptions about the target system that can never be true > across everyone's box - even when targeting the proper arch/platform/distro > and release (and then you have to maintain a lot of targets). And if the > assumptions don't hold, then that's what I'd call frustrating, provided it's > usually not immediately clear where the problem is because there was no > compiling/buildind/testing peformed locally making it much easier to figure > out what went wrong. > >> I also don't do that myself and cannot see the value on doing it. > > Well, by definition you can't if you haven't tried. Anyway, above quoted > says it's a trouble. Why? > >> Go has installers available for Windows/macOS and a tarball for Linux, >> already precompiled and ready to Go (pun intended), why would I spend the >> time compiling Go myself? > > To avoid the frustration and confusion you are talking about? I have always > installed Go from sources and I never experienced any frustration when doing > that (modulo me not reading or following the instructions and similar cases > of being silly.)
When I've suggested that people install Go from source, I have encountered problems because go1.4 no longer compiles from source on some platforms. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
