Re: [go-nuts] Re: Building with "go install" vs "go build"

> Often, this involves incrementing the version [...] If the process of saying "this binary is good to go, deploy it locally for use" already involve more than go install, maybe you could also "deploy" the binary to a different location than $GOPATH/bin . The benefit there is that you can take

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Building with "go install" vs "go build"

* Dave Cheney [170418 09:57]: > > Apparently Dave Cheney says to prefer "go install" over "go build"[3], > except when cross-compiling [4]. However, many of these posts are older, > and Golang moves at such a rapid clip that it's difficult to keep track of > what everybody is

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Building with "go install" vs "go build"

The good news is that Dave Cheney moves at that same rapid clip. :-) On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Dave Cheney wrote: > > Apparently Dave Cheney says to prefer "go install" over "go build"[3], > except when cross-compiling [4]. However, many of these posts are older, > and

[go-nuts] Re: Building with "go install" vs "go build"

> Apparently Dave Cheney says to prefer "go install" over "go build"[3], except when cross-compiling [4]. However, many of these posts are older, and Golang moves at such a rapid clip that it's difficult to keep track of what everybody is doing. This information is still correct. On Friday,

[go-nuts] Re: Building with "go install" vs "go build"

> > Are there more that I'm unaware of? > go get. It downloads source and follows it up with go install. Are some preferred in certain circumstances > The three ways you listed are similar but not equivalent, they have subtle differences in behavior. Use whatever is a better fit for your