On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:38:43PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > Using the domain name as part of the *upstream* library name is useful > for upstream authors because of how Go's built-in dependency management > tools work. Go integrates dependency management into the language and > the `go` tool itself. Re-using the upstream library name is useful > because they have already disambiguated for us. > > I don't intend to be rude, but I'm not going to put much effort into > responding to further comments that are not based on knowledge of how Go > handles package / dependency management with its built-in tools, or > modular programming in Go, in general. Already I used tons of my free > time to learn this stuff, just so I could make Guix packages of Go > software. Please meet me where I am. > > Again, I don't see an ethical problem here, so any motivation for me to > participate in this discussion, as a volunteer, must be technical. If > it's *wrong* to name the packages in this way, I will behave > differently.
I replied too harshly here, and I apologize for that. For me, this conversation really started on the wrong foot.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
