On 05/10/2016 08:42 AM, Tim Bell wrote: > I hope that the packaging technologies are considered as part of the TC > evaluation of a new language. While many alternative approaches are > available, a language which could not be packaged into RPM or DEB would > be an additional burden for distro builders and deployers. > > Does Go present any additional work compared to Python in this area ? > > Tim
As I wrote earlier, the main issue is that Go doesn't understand the concept of shared libraries (at least, last time I checked, and that was a few months ago). This means that whenever we get a new version of library X, everyone that depends on it must be rebuilt. This is *very* painful. Also, this means that every single binary contains an embedded copy of every Go lib it uses. This can potentially be a security nightmare. This also means we're wasting a lot of resources. Hopefully, we'll get there. According to someone else in this thread, Go has already basic support for shared libs, and eventually, we'll make it happen in distros too. But as much as I know, it's not the case yet, and it will take a lot of time (months? years?) to get it right. Plus all what Matthias wrote... Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: Again, I'm all but a Go specialist, so I hope I'm not writing too many wrong things here... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
