[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Go (golang) packaging, part 2

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:23:02AM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> Then don't package Go at all and leave it entirely outside the realm of dpkg
> - no dependencies allowed in either direction, no files created outside
> /usr/local for any reason, no contamination of the apt or dpkg cache data. If
> what you want is complete separation, why is there even a long running thread
> on integration?

That's one possible solution, and a low-risk one at that. The others carry the
risk of doing the job badly, especially if there is not enough resource to
implement them going forwards.

> Then why bother discussing packaging Go if it isn't going to be packaged,
> it's just going to invent it's own little ghetto in /usr/local?

That seems pretty perjorative. The reason Go has "invented it's own little
ghetto" is to solve the distribution problem. The reason they want to solve it
is because, despite our best efforts, we haven't solved it. Pretending we have
done helps nobody. From Go's perspective, we are a bit player. There's a
pattern of misplaced arrogance and pride that permeates -devel from time to
time whenever difficult integration discussions come up (systemd included) that
really doesn't help. Let's not overstate our importance in the wider world, it
does not help us one bit. Step by step we'll just close our doors to the rest
of the Universe and slide further into irrelevance.

> If Go wants to be packaged, it complies by the requirements of packaging.

Go doesn't want anything: It's a programming language and environment, not a
sentient being. The authors of Go are probably not that bothered about it being
packaged, seeing as they've put energy into solving the distribution problem
themselves, at the same time making it more difficult to distribution-package.
The people who want to see it packaged are people who want to see Debian users
be able to conveniently interact with Go-land.

Reply to: