On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:12:05AM +1200, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: > On 8 July 2016 at 20:03, Potter, Tim (HPE Linux Support) > <timothy.pot...@hpe.com> wrote: > > 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? > > Well, using them in Ubuntu was the reason Canonical paid me to > implement them, so yes... I'm am currently in the process of starting > to use these features in Ubuntu. My plan, such as it was, was to use > them in Ubuntu through the 16.10 cycle and then propose the changes to > Debian too, assuming they work out OK.
What does the provide specifically? Dynamic linking similar to what we currently have for library code written in C? Cheers, Moritz _______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers