On 13 July 2016 at 19:20, Moritz Mühlenhoff <j...@inutil.org> wrote: > 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?
Yes. There are more details here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IOlBWWgcDeB9PfRORENESYj8iJt4W2EwsbYcpg4akBE/edit Cheers, mwh _______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkgemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers