On 7 Jul 2016, at 12:40 PM, Martín Ferrari <tin...@tincho.org> wrote:
> On 06/07/16 20:59, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> What's the current status? Is there technical progress compared to what was
>> discussed in April? The freeze is coming really close and we can't support
>> the status quo for stretch.
> The discussion stalled at that point. AFAIK, there is no technical
> solution for this. The best we could do is to have easier ways to track
> dependency chains, but that does not change the fact that all golang
> applications are still statically built, and so would require rebuilds
> when security bugs are discovered and fixed.
> I understand this is problematic, but not sure we can do anything about
> it at this point.

Hi everyone.  I've done a small amount of research into the buildmode=c-shared
and the dynlink option and they look good on paper.  Has anyone examined these
options more seriously?

My guess would be that there might be a bunch of as yet undiscovered
platform-specific bugs with this, and it's probably too late at this stage to 
such a major change to the golang package build process.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to