* Michael Hudson-Doyle:
> On 10 July 2016 at 07:39, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>> * Dmitry Smirnov:
>>
>>> On Friday, 8 July 2016 8:53:20 AM AEST Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> Part of the problem is that we currently lack a decent way t
* Dmitry Smirnov:
> On Friday, 8 July 2016 8:53:20 AM AEST Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Part of the problem is that we currently lack a decent way to list all
>> these reverse dependencies.
>
> We can get list of all source packages to re-build from reverse build
> depe
* Michael Hudson-Doyle:
> There is another approach to the static linking issue, which is to
> start using dynamic linking instead. It's implemented upstream for
> most architectures now (only mips64 le/be and ppc64 be missing I
> think). I'm going to be working on starting to use dynamic linking
* MartÃn Ferrari:
>> The alternative is to rebuild reverse dependencies as needed. I can
>> see two challenges with that. Right now, the Built-Using field only
>> records the source versions of the *direct* dependencies (based on the
>> dh_golang manual page and a few examples I looked at). If
Hi,
we need to discuss how we can support applications written in Go for
stretch.
The most radical approach would be not to ship any Go applications in
stretch, only the basic Go language implementations. This is probably
not desirable.
So we need something to deal with the static linking
