Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:44:09 -0600 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:48:44AM +0100, yac wrote: On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:02:49 -0500 Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote: The default GOROOT that go looks at for base libraries seems to be compiled in so this should be pretty easy, like python but simplier. I'm not sure what you are trying to solve here. Afaik GOROOT is used to determine where to install and it can be overriden from env. Not overridden, but extended. See go help gopath. An eclass could look at a GO_MINIMUM variable and install for each version go that is present and matches. It might be good idea to learn from others who'd been through this and I think the new python eclasses are good ones, going with something like PYTHON_TARGETS array (GOLANG_TARGETS ?) I would prefer go_targets if this becomes an issue, golang is more search friendly but it isn't at this point because there is only one target, go1, and we do not know if there will be a go2 or not. There still are different compilers at least, even if changing minor version would be a non-issue. But I'm not familiar with those, I think those are used for compiling for other than the supported archs (iirc only x86 and x86_64) Dropping old versions of go will be easy because linking wont break, and new releases should be forwards compatible. So far yes I think but I guess that may be quite different with in the future with 1.x, and should be so there may be corner cases where the user does need to use earlier version. Highly unlikely in the context of go1, and again, we don't know if there is going to even be a go2 or not. The only reason there will be a go2 is if there needs to be a change at the source level which can only be done in a backward incompatible way. The question really should be, do we want a system-wide workspace to store third-party libraries [1]? and if so, where do we put it -- maybe /usr/lib/go-gentoo should exist along side /usr/lib/go? I assume you are talking about thirdparty packages installed by portage, not by localy/manually by user. Well, without the system-wide workspace to store the libraries, this whole go eclass would be kinda pointless, no? Currently /usr/lib/go/gentoo is used and I see no reason to change it. The catch would be that every time you upgrade dev-lang/go, everything stored in /usr/lib/go-gentoo has to be recompiled because there is no guarantee that the libraries we have there are compatible with each minor release of go1, only the source. Then, the executables we have in /usr/bin will still run, but it would be good to rebuild them as well to get the new libraries linked into them. If we had a work space in, say, /usr/lib/go-gentoo, we could leave the executables in there and symlink them to /usr/bin. If we did that, it would be easy for a user to rebuild everything in the workspace for the new go by doing emerge /usr/lib/go-gentoo/bin Good idea. Thoughts? William [1] http://golang.org/doc/code.html --- Jan Matějka| Gentoo Developer https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021 6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:34:22PM +0100, yac wrote: On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:44:09 -0600 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:48:44AM +0100, yac wrote: On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:02:49 -0500 Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote: The default GOROOT that go looks at for base libraries seems to be compiled in so this should be pretty easy, like python but simplier. I'm not sure what you are trying to solve here. Afaik GOROOT is used to determine where to install and it can be overriden from env. Not overridden, but extended. See go help gopath. An eclass could look at a GO_MINIMUM variable and install for each version go that is present and matches. It might be good idea to learn from others who'd been through this and I think the new python eclasses are good ones, going with something like PYTHON_TARGETS array (GOLANG_TARGETS ?) I would prefer go_targets if this becomes an issue, golang is more search friendly but it isn't at this point because there is only one target, go1, and we do not know if there will be a go2 or not. There still are different compilers at least, even if changing minor version would be a non-issue. But I'm not familiar with those, I think those are used for compiling for other than the supported archs (iirc only x86 and x86_64) Also add arm to the supported list along with amd64/x86-fbsd. The only other compiler is gccgo [1], but it is part of the gcc toolchain, so I have no idea what they are doing there, or if our toolchain guys are even supporting it. Also, if you look at the comments on that page, it is a bit behind dev-lang/go. It is not clear to me either whether gccgo works on other architectures, and whether it is a compiler or a front end like the old cfront used to be for c++. Also, I don't know whether it will even share the same libraries as dev-lang/go; it may just use standard libraries stored in /usr/lib. In short, I have no clue how gccgo works. ;-) Dropping old versions of go will be easy because linking wont break, and new releases should be forwards compatible. So far yes I think but I guess that may be quite different with in the future with 1.x, and should be so there may be corner cases where the user does need to use earlier version. Highly unlikely in the context of go1, and again, we don't know if there is going to even be a go2 or not. The only reason there will be a go2 is if there needs to be a change at the source level which can only be done in a backward incompatible way. The question really should be, do we want a system-wide workspace to store third-party libraries [1]? and if so, where do we put it -- maybe /usr/lib/go-gentoo should exist along side /usr/lib/go? I assume you are talking about thirdparty packages installed by portage, not by localy/manually by user. Well, without the system-wide workspace to store the libraries, this whole go eclass would be kinda pointless, no? Currently /usr/lib/go/gentoo is used and I see no reason to change it. Well, I was suggesting go-gentoo to keep third party libraries out of the standard go tree and based on the definition of a workspace from the go documentation. The catch would be that every time you upgrade dev-lang/go, everything stored in /usr/lib/go-gentoo has to be recompiled because there is no guarantee that the libraries we have there are compatible with each minor release of go1, only the source. Then, the executables we have in /usr/bin will still run, but it would be good to rebuild them as well to get the new libraries linked into them. If we had a work space in, say, /usr/lib/go-gentoo, we could leave the executables in there and symlink them to /usr/bin. If we did that, it would be easy for a user to rebuild everything in the workspace for the new go by doing emerge /usr/lib/go-gentoo/bin Good idea. Thoughts? William [1] http://golang.org/doc/code.html --- Jan Matějka| Gentoo Developer https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021 6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B [1] http://golang.org/doc/install/gccgo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:13:27 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:02:49AM -0500, Emery Hemingway wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:30:10 +0100
Jan Matejka y...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:59:16 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi all,
I responded to this a while back, but I guess my email didn't
go out for some reason.
As the primary go maintainer, I do want to be involved in
this. :-)
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:38:44AM +0100, yac wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:48:17 -0500
Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote:
I really like working with Go, and would like to see a
means of merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am
asking if anyone else is interested in a Go project.
I might be. I have packaged something for private use but it
just a bunch of hacks. Anyway, I have some production go code.
For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why
Portage and Go do not play well together.
Go is static linked by default.
The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries.
Libraries compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2)
may not be linked into the same binary.
Haskell is staticaly linked as well (by default) and you can
see the gentoo haskell project. I don't see this as a
problem, we just will have all dependencies in DEPEND and
will have to scope on the go compiler version under something
like /usr/lib/go-1.{1,2}/...
That could be done easily enough, but what about the tools
in /usr/bin (there aren't many, but there are a couple), and
these do not change name with each version of go.
Please see what python does for different python versions (which
you omitted from my previous email).
I omitted it, because thinking about it, we don't need to worry about
this. There isn't a reason you would want go 1.1 and go 1.2 on your
system. Source level compatibility is guaranteed for all go1 programs
[1].
I've modified the go-1.2 ebuild to install to usr/lib/go1.2 and I'm
working on an eselect module to manage the symlink to
usr/bin/[go,gofmt]
I would just install to /usr/lib/go1 and not worry about the eselect
module; there should not be a need to keep several versions of go1
around, again, because go1.x releases will be source compatible.
We could even just leave this as /usr/lib/go, because upstream doesn't
even know if a go-2 specification will happen.
The default GOROOT that go looks at for base libraries seems to be
compiled in so this should be pretty easy, like python but simplier.
It looks for standard libraries in GOROOT_FINAL which is set in the
ebuild and compiled into the binaries.
Third party libraries are interesting in this case, because, all of
the third party libraries we install will not be usable once the user
upgrades from say go-1.2 to go-1.3. However, rebuilding those
libraries from source will work.
William
[1] http://golang.org/doc/go1compat
The reason I thought go should be slotting was that all compliled
libraries would break when go was replaced.
Mabye the only the library source could be installed, and a cache of
compiled libraries could be overlayed over that...
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:48:44AM +0100, yac wrote: On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:02:49 -0500 Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote: The default GOROOT that go looks at for base libraries seems to be compiled in so this should be pretty easy, like python but simplier. I'm not sure what you are trying to solve here. Afaik GOROOT is used to determine where to install and it can be overriden from env. Not overridden, but extended. See go help gopath. An eclass could look at a GO_MINIMUM variable and install for each version go that is present and matches. It might be good idea to learn from others who'd been through this and I think the new python eclasses are good ones, going with something like PYTHON_TARGETS array (GOLANG_TARGETS ?) I would prefer go_targets if this becomes an issue, but it isn't at this point because there is only one target, go1, and we do not know if there will be a go2 or not. Dropping old versions of go will be easy because linking wont break, and new releases should be forwards compatible. So far yes I think but I guess that may be quite different with in the future with 1.x, and should be so there may be corner cases where the user does need to use earlier version. Highly unlikely in the context of go1, and again, we don't know if there is going to even be a go2 or not. The only reason there will be a go2 is if there needs to be a change at the source level which can only be done in a backward incompatible way. The question really should be, do we want a system-wide workspace to store third-party libraries [1]? and if so, where do we put it -- maybe /usr/lib/go-gentoo should exist along side /usr/lib/go? The catch would be that every time you upgrade dev-lang/go, everything stored in /usr/lib/go-gentoo has to be recompiled because there is no guarantee that the libraries we have there are compatible with each minor release of go1, only the source. Then, the executables we have in /usr/bin will still run, but it would be good to rebuild them as well to get the new libraries linked into them. If we had a work space in, say, /usr/lib/go-gentoo, we could leave the executables in there and symlink them to /usr/bin. If we did that, it would be easy for a user to rebuild everything in the workspace for the new go by doing emerge /usr/lib/go-gentoo/bin Thoughts? William [1] http://golang.org/doc/code.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:59:16 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi all,
I responded to this a while back, but I guess my email didn't go out
for some reason.
As the primary go maintainer, I do want to be involved in this. :-)
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:38:44AM +0100, yac wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:48:17 -0500
Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote:
I really like working with Go, and would like to see a means of
merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am asking if anyone
else is interested in a Go project.
I might be. I have packaged something for private use but it just a
bunch of hacks. Anyway, I have some production go code.
For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why
Portage and Go do not play well together.
Go is static linked by default.
The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries. Libraries
compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2) may not be
linked into the same binary.
Haskell is staticaly linked as well (by default) and you can see the
gentoo haskell project. I don't see this as a problem, we just will
have all dependencies in DEPEND and will have to scope on the go
compiler version under something like /usr/lib/go-1.{1,2}/...
That could be done easily enough, but what about the tools in /usr/bin
(there aren't many, but there are a couple), and these do not change
name with each version of go.
Please see what python does for different python versions (which you
omitted from my previous email).
Go libraries are usually unversioned.
Libraries outside the system library are resolved with an import
statement that specifies a source code repository, such as a git
or mecurial repository. Most often Go libraries are installed
using the 'go get' tool that clones a repository, and simply
assumes HEAD/tip is the best revision to build against. There is
some support for using git tags but it is not well documented.
Often these libraries are very small for the sake of reuse and to
keep APIs simple.
My understanding is that a library repo will have branches based on
the version of go, so for example, it might have a branch called go-1
which will be where go get will look to find the latest version of
the code that works with go-1.x.
In this case we just have to require upstream to make releases or
publish either live ebuilds, or ebuilds versioned something like
0_pre-MM-DD.ebuild [1]
I don't think we are going to be able to require upstream to make
releases, so that leaves us with:
1) using live ebuilds, which will never be allowed to have keywords by
gentoo policy, or
2) publishing snapshots, which also means we have to create tarballs
to match them. This will be a lot of work for us as maintainers.
Also, the only way we will know when a new version of the library
is released is to closely monitor the upstream git repository.
As I said in previous email, I think at least part of go community sees
this as an issue and this is something we can not solve right now but
rather need to work on this on case-by-case basis.
Some upstreams may be willing to do releases / follow semver.org or
something like that. But there will also be upstream which won't and
that's fine, we should be able to handle both cases.
Anyway, asking the upstream to do a release is simple enough and you
won't know until you ask.
The other concern, which I believe zero was talking about is, once a
library is installed in GOPATH, I don't think the go build system
rebuilds it. In other words, go get will see that it is already
there and I don't think it goes back out to the net to check for any
changes.
I think when doing a `go build` it will check if newer version is
available and print a warning.
William
--
Jan Matějka| Gentoo Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021 6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:30:10 +0100
Jan Matejka y...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:59:16 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi all,
I responded to this a while back, but I guess my email didn't go out
for some reason.
As the primary go maintainer, I do want to be involved in this. :-)
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:38:44AM +0100, yac wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:48:17 -0500
Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote:
I really like working with Go, and would like to see a means of
merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am asking if anyone
else is interested in a Go project.
I might be. I have packaged something for private use but it just
a bunch of hacks. Anyway, I have some production go code.
For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why
Portage and Go do not play well together.
Go is static linked by default.
The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries. Libraries
compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2) may not be
linked into the same binary.
Haskell is staticaly linked as well (by default) and you can see
the gentoo haskell project. I don't see this as a problem, we
just will have all dependencies in DEPEND and will have to scope
on the go compiler version under something
like /usr/lib/go-1.{1,2}/...
That could be done easily enough, but what about the tools
in /usr/bin (there aren't many, but there are a couple), and these
do not change name with each version of go.
Please see what python does for different python versions (which you
omitted from my previous email).
I've modified the go-1.2 ebuild to install to usr/lib/go1.2 and I'm
working on an eselect module to manage the symlink to usr/bin/[go,gofmt]
The default GOROOT that go looks at for base libraries seems to be
compiled in so this should be pretty easy, like python but simplier.
An eclass could look at a GO_MINIMUM variable and install for each
version go that is present and matches. Dropping old versions of go
will be easy because linking wont break, and new releases should be
forwards compatible. Maybe 3rd party library sources could be stored in
a version agnostic directory and symlinked in to usr/lib/goX.X/gentoo
to deduplicate the files?
Go libraries are usually unversioned.
Libraries outside the system library are resolved with an import
statement that specifies a source code repository, such as a git
or mecurial repository. Most often Go libraries are installed
using the 'go get' tool that clones a repository, and simply
assumes HEAD/tip is the best revision to build against. There is
some support for using git tags but it is not well documented.
Often these libraries are very small for the sake of reuse and
to keep APIs simple.
My understanding is that a library repo will have branches based on
the version of go, so for example, it might have a branch called
go-1 which will be where go get will look to find the latest
version of the code that works with go-1.x.
In this case we just have to require upstream to make releases or
publish either live ebuilds, or ebuilds versioned something like
0_pre-MM-DD.ebuild [1]
I don't think we are going to be able to require upstream to make
releases, so that leaves us with:
1) using live ebuilds, which will never be allowed to have keywords
by gentoo policy, or
2) publishing snapshots, which also means we have to create tarballs
to match them. This will be a lot of work for us as maintainers.
Also, the only way we will know when a new version of the library
is released is to closely monitor the upstream git repository.
As I said in previous email, I think at least part of go community
sees this as an issue and this is something we can not solve right
now but rather need to work on this on case-by-case basis.
Some upstreams may be willing to do releases / follow semver.org or
something like that. But there will also be upstream which won't and
that's fine, we should be able to handle both cases.
Anyway, asking the upstream to do a release is simple enough and you
won't know until you ask.
The other concern, which I believe zero was talking about is, once a
library is installed in GOPATH, I don't think the go build system
rebuilds it. In other words, go get will see that it is already
there and I don't think it goes back out to the net to check for any
changes.
I think when doing a `go build` it will check if newer version is
available and print a warning.
We may have to make some sort of utitilty to parse sources and check
for updates, and roll tarballs to mirror.
William
--
Jan Matějka| Gentoo Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021 6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:02:49AM -0500, Emery Hemingway wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:30:10 +0100
Jan Matejka y...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:59:16 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi all,
I responded to this a while back, but I guess my email didn't go out
for some reason.
As the primary go maintainer, I do want to be involved in this. :-)
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:38:44AM +0100, yac wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:48:17 -0500
Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote:
I really like working with Go, and would like to see a means of
merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am asking if anyone
else is interested in a Go project.
I might be. I have packaged something for private use but it just
a bunch of hacks. Anyway, I have some production go code.
For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why
Portage and Go do not play well together.
Go is static linked by default.
The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries. Libraries
compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2) may not be
linked into the same binary.
Haskell is staticaly linked as well (by default) and you can see
the gentoo haskell project. I don't see this as a problem, we
just will have all dependencies in DEPEND and will have to scope
on the go compiler version under something
like /usr/lib/go-1.{1,2}/...
That could be done easily enough, but what about the tools
in /usr/bin (there aren't many, but there are a couple), and these
do not change name with each version of go.
Please see what python does for different python versions (which you
omitted from my previous email).
I omitted it, because thinking about it, we don't need to worry about
this. There isn't a reason you would want go 1.1 and go 1.2 on your
system. Source level compatibility is guaranteed for all go1 programs
[1].
I've modified the go-1.2 ebuild to install to usr/lib/go1.2 and I'm
working on an eselect module to manage the symlink to usr/bin/[go,gofmt]
I would just install to /usr/lib/go1 and not worry about the eselect
module; there should not be a need to keep several versions of go1
around, again, because go1.x releases will be source compatible.
We could even just leave this as /usr/lib/go, because upstream doesn't
even know if a go-2 specification will happen.
The default GOROOT that go looks at for base libraries seems to be
compiled in so this should be pretty easy, like python but simplier.
It looks for standard libraries in GOROOT_FINAL which is set in the
ebuild and compiled into the binaries.
Third party libraries are interesting in this case, because, all of the
third party libraries we install will not be usable once the user
upgrades from say go-1.2 to go-1.3. However, rebuilding those libraries
from source will work.
William
[1] http://golang.org/doc/go1compat
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:02:49 -0500
Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:30:10 +0100
Jan Matejka y...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:59:16 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi all,
I responded to this a while back, but I guess my email didn't go
out for some reason.
As the primary go maintainer, I do want to be involved in
this. :-)
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:38:44AM +0100, yac wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:48:17 -0500
Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote:
I really like working with Go, and would like to see a means
of merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am asking if
anyone else is interested in a Go project.
I might be. I have packaged something for private use but it
just a bunch of hacks. Anyway, I have some production go code.
For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why
Portage and Go do not play well together.
Go is static linked by default.
The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries.
Libraries compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2)
may not be linked into the same binary.
Haskell is staticaly linked as well (by default) and you can see
the gentoo haskell project. I don't see this as a problem, we
just will have all dependencies in DEPEND and will have to scope
on the go compiler version under something
like /usr/lib/go-1.{1,2}/...
That could be done easily enough, but what about the tools
in /usr/bin (there aren't many, but there are a couple), and these
do not change name with each version of go.
Please see what python does for different python versions (which you
omitted from my previous email).
I've modified the go-1.2 ebuild to install to usr/lib/go1.2 and I'm
working on an eselect module to manage the symlink to
usr/bin/[go,gofmt]
The default GOROOT that go looks at for base libraries seems to be
compiled in so this should be pretty easy, like python but simplier.
I'm not sure what you are trying to solve here. Afaik GOROOT is used to
determine where to install and it can be overriden from env.
An eclass could look at a GO_MINIMUM variable and install for each
version go that is present and matches.
It might be good idea to learn from others who'd been through this and
I think the new python eclasses are good ones, going with something
like PYTHON_TARGETS array (GOLANG_TARGETS ?)
Dropping old versions of go
will be easy because linking wont break, and new releases should be
forwards compatible.
So far yes I think but I guess that may be quite different with in the
future with 1.x, and should be so there may be corner cases where the
user does need to use earlier version.
Maybe 3rd party library sources could be stored
in a version agnostic directory and symlinked in to
usr/lib/goX.X/gentoo to deduplicate the files?
I'm not sure this is a good idea either. Disk space is cheap and
doing this would only require adding special case handling code which
would get even more complicated when doing upgrades or the situation
changes (eg. main golang version).
Also keep in mind, the main golang version should not be just 1.1 but
rather go1.1 as you may also want to choose gccsomething.
Go libraries are usually unversioned.
Libraries outside the system library are resolved with an
import statement that specifies a source code repository,
such as a git or mecurial repository. Most often Go libraries
are installed using the 'go get' tool that clones a
repository, and simply assumes HEAD/tip is the best revision
to build against. There is some support for using git tags
but it is not well documented. Often these libraries are very
small for the sake of reuse and to keep APIs simple.
My understanding is that a library repo will have branches based
on the version of go, so for example, it might have a branch
called go-1 which will be where go get will look to find the
latest version of the code that works with go-1.x.
In this case we just have to require upstream to make releases
or publish either live ebuilds, or ebuilds versioned something
like 0_pre-MM-DD.ebuild [1]
I don't think we are going to be able to require upstream to make
releases, so that leaves us with:
1) using live ebuilds, which will never be allowed to have
keywords by gentoo policy, or
2) publishing snapshots, which also means we have to create
tarballs to match them. This will be a lot of work for us as
maintainers. Also, the only way we will know when a new version
of the library is released is to closely monitor the upstream git
repository.
As I said in previous email, I think at least part of go community
sees this as an issue and this is something we can not solve right
now but rather need to work on this on case-by-case
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
I think it would be good idea to start a separate gentoo-golang repository (github?) and treat it more (to keep it aligned with the way gentoo works) or less (to speed up the development) as if it were gx86. In the organization part, I think we could inspire ourself in the way gentoo-haskell works. Jan Matějka| Gentoo Developer https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021 6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B Thanks the comments, I'm not familar with what portage does with haskel so I'll take a look. I'll collect the notes that have been made here and start a project on github or gitorious in the next few days and post the details here. Emery
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
Hi all,
I responded to this a while back, but I guess my email didn't go out for
some reason.
As the primary go maintainer, I do want to be involved in this. :-)
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:38:44AM +0100, yac wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:48:17 -0500
Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote:
I really like working with Go, and would like to see a means of
merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am asking if anyone else
is interested in a Go project.
I might be. I have packaged something for private use but it just a
bunch of hacks. Anyway, I have some production go code.
For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why Portage and
Go do not play well together.
Go is static linked by default.
The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries. Libraries
compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2) may not be linked
into the same binary.
Haskell is staticaly linked as well (by default) and you can see the
gentoo haskell project. I don't see this as a problem, we just will have
all dependencies in DEPEND and will have to scope on the go compiler
version under something like /usr/lib/go-1.{1,2}/...
That could be done easily enough, but what about the tools in /usr/bin
(there aren't many, but there are a couple), and these do not change
name with each version of go.
Go libraries are usually unversioned.
Libraries outside the system library are resolved with an import
statement that specifies a source code repository, such as a git or
mecurial repository. Most often Go libraries are installed using the
'go get' tool that clones a repository, and simply assumes HEAD/tip is
the best revision to build against. There is some support for using
git tags but it is not well documented. Often these libraries are very
small for the sake of reuse and to keep APIs simple.
My understanding is that a library repo will have branches based on the
version of go, so for example, it might have a branch called go-1 which
will be where go get will look to find the latest version of the code
that works with go-1.x.
In this case we just have to require upstream to make releases or
publish either live ebuilds, or ebuilds versioned something like
0_pre-MM-DD.ebuild [1]
I don't think we are going to be able to require upstream to make
releases, so that leaves us with:
1) using live ebuilds, which will never be allowed to have keywords by
gentoo policy, or
2) publishing snapshots, which also means we have to create tarballs to
match them. This will be a lot of work for us as maintainers. Also, the
only way we will know when a new version of the library is released is
to closely monitor the upstream git repository.
The other concern, which I believe zero was talking about is, once a
library is installed in GOPATH, I don't think the go build system
rebuilds it. In other words, go get will see that it is already there
and I don't think it goes back out to the net to check for any changes.
William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
I made an overlay for Go eclasses and packages: https://github.com/gentoo-golang/overlay If anyone is interested ping 'emery' in #gentoo-dev-help and I'll add you to the github organization. There is an overlay skeleton at master, and a first draft eclass and ebuilds for btcd on another branch. I'll start adding what was discussed here as issues on the repo. Emery
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:48:17 -0500
Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote:
I really like working with Go, and would like to see a means of
merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am asking if anyone else
is interested in a Go project.
I might be. I have packaged something for private use but it just a
bunch of hacks. Anyway, I have some production go code.
For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why Portage and
Go do not play well together.
Go is static linked by default.
The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries. Libraries
compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2) may not be linked
into the same binary.
Haskell is staticaly linked as well (by default) and you can see the
gentoo haskell project. I don't see this as a problem, we just will have
all dependencies in DEPEND and will have to scope on the go compiler
version under something like /usr/lib/go-1.{1,2}/...
I'd just copy the python herd approach (use flags, filesystem scoping
and having binary wrapper).
It is possible to compile dynamicly and that may involve using the
GCC frontend, which is probably less tested and less optimized.
I'd just skip over this unless someone is really interested in this one,
in which case this could be explicitly enabled by a use flag or
something.
Go libraries are usually unversioned.
Libraries outside the system library are resolved with an import
statement that specifies a source code repository, such as a git or
mecurial repository. Most often Go libraries are installed using the
'go get' tool that clones a repository, and simply assumes HEAD/tip is
the best revision to build against. There is some support for using
git tags but it is not well documented. Often these libraries are very
small for the sake of reuse and to keep APIs simple.
In this case we just have to require upstream to make releases or
publish either live ebuilds, or ebuilds versioned something like
0_pre-MM-DD.ebuild [1]
I know part of the gopher commnity doesn't see this as a problem but I
believe the big players recognize this and there is an effort to come up
with a solution.
If all that sounds bad, thats because it is. Is it worth versioning
many tiny libraries or do we simply cache the repositiories and blame
upstream when things stop compiling?
I'd certainly want to have versions where available.
A have made an eclass for Go and an ebuild for the bitcoin node
written in pure Go to atleast prove that all this is possible. These
are in the 'emery' overlay:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=eclass
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=dev-go
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=net-p2p/btcd
The eclass it a bit of a mess but it works, having done that, I would
say that making ebuilds for every go library is tedious, but can be
done almost entirely with boilerplate, almost every time.
The eclasss installs go source and static libraries
to /usr/lib/go/gentoo (source code and .a library are required to
link). The problem is when Go is updated, this folder may get wiped
out, and if it isn't, those libraries will be incompatable with the
new release anyway.
How come it gets wiped? That just shouldn't happen.
The other solution I see is to make a Go directory in /var/cache or
I don't think this is a good idea as I think it would be surprising to
users to find libraries elsewhere than /usr/lib and I believe /var/cache
specificaly even violates FHS.
something like it and just manage it as a cache.
Libraries may come and go but that is fine.
I might want to have a library just for development and I'd wouldn't
like it disappearing.
Bare repositories may be cached in DISTDIR
just like the git and mercurial eclasses do. Doing things this way may
require a specific utility for Portage that wraps the Go toolchain,
which I would be willing to create. This utility could probably
automatically resolve and fetch the libraries that are required
Building the library/package shouldn't/mustn't (what does the PMS
say?) require network access once the sources are fetched.
as opposed to making an ebuild for each library, but that raises the
problem of assuming the developers of each library maintain consistant
quality and security.
Every ebuild that gets to gentoo official must meet basic standard of
quality. That's no different for golang.
The problem is Go makes it trivial to build from source, but it does
that in a very different and less precise way than Gentoo. There is
always the option of build bots and installing binaries to /opt...
Emery
I think it would be good idea to start a separate gentoo-golang
repository (github?) and treat it more (to keep it aligned with the way
gentoo works) or less (to speed up the development) as if it were gx86.
In the organization part, I think we could inspire ourself in the way
gentoo-haskell works.
[1]:
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Emery Hemingway em...@vfemail.net wrote: I really like working with Go, and would like to see a means of merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am asking if anyone else is interested in a Go project. For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why Portage and Go do not play well together. Go is static linked by default. The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries. Libraries compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2) may not be linked into the same binary. It is possible to compile dynamicly and that may involve using the GCC frontend, which is probably less tested and less optimized. Go libraries are usually unversioned. Libraries outside the system library are resolved with an import statement that specifies a source code repository, such as a git or mecurial repository. Most often Go libraries are installed using the 'go get' tool that clones a repository, and simply assumes HEAD/tip is the best revision to build against. There is some support for using git tags but it is not well documented. Often these libraries are very small for the sake of reuse and to keep APIs simple. If all that sounds bad, thats because it is. Is it worth versioning many tiny libraries or do we simply cache the repositiories and blame upstream when things stop compiling? A have made an eclass for Go and an ebuild for the bitcoin node written in pure Go to atleast prove that all this is possible. These are in the 'emery' overlay: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=eclass http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=dev-go http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=net-p2p/btcd The eclass it a bit of a mess but it works, having done that, I would say that making ebuilds for every go library is tedious, but can be done almost entirely with boilerplate, almost every time. Don't we basically do this with perl and g-cpan? The eclasss installs go source and static libraries to /usr/lib/go/gentoo (source code and .a library are required to link). The problem is when Go is updated, this folder may get wiped out, and if it isn't, those libraries will be incompatable with the new release anyway. Can we version the shared objects in the golang they were compiled for? /usr/lib/go/gentoo/GO_TOOLCHAIN_VERSION/... The other solution I see is to make a Go directory in /var/cache or something like it and just manage it as a cache. Libraries may come and go but that is fine. Bare repositories may be cached in DISTDIR just like the git and mercurial eclasses do. Doing things this way may require a specific utility for Portage that wraps the Go toolchain, which I would be willing to create. This utility could probably automatically resolve and fetch the libraries that are required as opposed to making an ebuild for each library, but that raises the problem of assuming the developers of each library maintain consistant quality and security. I feel like this is not a great idea. What your idea as proposed reads like to me is 'hey i want to move some libraries into /var/cache..cause you know...we can delete the libraries at any time...and we can just recompile them!' The problem is Go makes it trivial to build from source, but it does that in a very different and less precise way than Gentoo. There is always the option of build bots and installing binaries to /opt... Emery
[gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
I really like working with Go, and would like to see a means of merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am asking if anyone else is interested in a Go project. For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why Portage and Go do not play well together. Go is static linked by default. The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries. Libraries compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2) may not be linked into the same binary. It is possible to compile dynamicly and that may involve using the GCC frontend, which is probably less tested and less optimized. Go libraries are usually unversioned. Libraries outside the system library are resolved with an import statement that specifies a source code repository, such as a git or mecurial repository. Most often Go libraries are installed using the 'go get' tool that clones a repository, and simply assumes HEAD/tip is the best revision to build against. There is some support for using git tags but it is not well documented. Often these libraries are very small for the sake of reuse and to keep APIs simple. If all that sounds bad, thats because it is. Is it worth versioning many tiny libraries or do we simply cache the repositiories and blame upstream when things stop compiling? A have made an eclass for Go and an ebuild for the bitcoin node written in pure Go to atleast prove that all this is possible. These are in the 'emery' overlay: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=eclass http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=dev-go http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=net-p2p/btcd The eclass it a bit of a mess but it works, having done that, I would say that making ebuilds for every go library is tedious, but can be done almost entirely with boilerplate, almost every time. The eclasss installs go source and static libraries to /usr/lib/go/gentoo (source code and .a library are required to link). The problem is when Go is updated, this folder may get wiped out, and if it isn't, those libraries will be incompatable with the new release anyway. The other solution I see is to make a Go directory in /var/cache or something like it and just manage it as a cache. Libraries may come and go but that is fine. Bare repositories may be cached in DISTDIR just like the git and mercurial eclasses do. Doing things this way may require a specific utility for Portage that wraps the Go toolchain, which I would be willing to create. This utility could probably automatically resolve and fetch the libraries that are required as opposed to making an ebuild for each library, but that raises the problem of assuming the developers of each library maintain consistant quality and security. The problem is Go makes it trivial to build from source, but it does that in a very different and less precise way than Gentoo. There is always the option of build bots and installing binaries to /opt... Emery
Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lang/go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/30/2013 03:48 PM, Emery Hemingway wrote: I really like working with Go, and would like to see a means of merging Go packages with Portage. In short I am asking if anyone else is interested in a Go project. For those who aren't familiar with Go, I will sumarise why Portage and Go do not play well together. You can fine go-mtpfs in portage already. I packaged it, with a lot of help. It's terrible. Worst part, it can't reinstall. You can install, and uninstall, but if it is installed you can't install again (so emerge - -e @world would fail). By all means, have fun. - -Zero Go is static linked by default. The Go compiler creates static libraries and binaries. Libraries compilied with different versions of Go (1.1/1.2) may not be linked into the same binary. It is possible to compile dynamicly and that may involve using the GCC frontend, which is probably less tested and less optimized. Go libraries are usually unversioned. Libraries outside the system library are resolved with an import statement that specifies a source code repository, such as a git or mecurial repository. Most often Go libraries are installed using the 'go get' tool that clones a repository, and simply assumes HEAD/tip is the best revision to build against. There is some support for using git tags but it is not well documented. Often these libraries are very small for the sake of reuse and to keep APIs simple. If all that sounds bad, thats because it is. Is it worth versioning many tiny libraries or do we simply cache the repositiories and blame upstream when things stop compiling? A have made an eclass for Go and an ebuild for the bitcoin node written in pure Go to atleast prove that all this is possible. These are in the 'emery' overlay: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=eclass http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=dev-go http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=user/emery.git;a=tree;f=net-p2p/btcd The eclass it a bit of a mess but it works, having done that, I would say that making ebuilds for every go library is tedious, but can be done almost entirely with boilerplate, almost every time. The eclasss installs go source and static libraries to /usr/lib/go/gentoo (source code and .a library are required to link). The problem is when Go is updated, this folder may get wiped out, and if it isn't, those libraries will be incompatable with the new release anyway. The other solution I see is to make a Go directory in /var/cache or something like it and just manage it as a cache. Libraries may come and go but that is fine. Bare repositories may be cached in DISTDIR just like the git and mercurial eclasses do. Doing things this way may require a specific utility for Portage that wraps the Go toolchain, which I would be willing to create. This utility could probably automatically resolve and fetch the libraries that are required as opposed to making an ebuild for each library, but that raises the problem of assuming the developers of each library maintain consistant quality and security. The problem is Go makes it trivial to build from source, but it does that in a very different and less precise way than Gentoo. There is always the option of build bots and installing binaries to /opt... Emery -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSweOYAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKaf4QAK2JNcVGg4eSvVXpkkgdwKlO xp3Dm8ao6Ly/DuqD1wSQUghsaCaw9yD0bzlnLOwGQkHhFhAxqj/wpyLdKAr6rQ64 YqtT5WIFdymuB/rSO+0D47zfyjQeFLUGbiiSLMTrTyqol2SexchlVu6mLKLDM0rX pJctl4iERzHKHF7/xdQv90vBkUgQsRlN/YlGYUXO/6P5CDJU+T2+rGlps7yN/z+h oaZrVJxNHExdTCbIhnpfKOVSiBisVG2dlwJKL0FFq9EhJph+hrxe9CaD8rMNKGkL Suc/6rT4vFmBmb32/Lzy4x9dfxD6n12vwQBn8ZctJnoqfniVx96S4xmwrBtG3hNH 7JenDriuVUuIkUut45+okBUu829PDt0qs+LRRBQejf4DdnkFKJGg1W+97IwVGlTc J/qz+sEdoLTD88zd145iMf79TonmDwDxGxoDEiGs69250TC0WWWnP0x799p0S7uq +2iOunm2oRB2HAiGg/T/rC+C00/pE441ZWX/zXtDphVe3oOsQ8ieZOL/U62+vb6e /VaUp9iTQrssRvRuIpvC0Oqt+2YGlUQHFEAHb/5HHTBFhrdZLyC3edai7+VNIEy3 UV6B82MY5sUDhHPY+b2RpVlrkuhN7AqZWebI7qapVzU3gg8liyE8LWW6uvgz7wTF 8BWuxvBPwaP/1RczKaeV =Yv0m -END PGP SIGNATURE-
