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

Re: Go (golang) packaging, part 2

* Neil Williams:

> If what you want is complete separation, why is there even a long
> running thread on integration?

Sorry if I failed to make myself clear:

I want excellent Debian packages of the compiler/runtime/tools *and*
libraries *and* still make it possible for our users to use upstream's
half-a-package-manager if they so desire. Complete separation is
something entirely different.

> 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?

We already have directory structures in place in /usr/local for several
other languages and "software ecosystems":

$ ls /usr/local/lib/
eclipse   ocaml  python2.6  python3.1  site_ruby
luarocks  perl   python2.7  python3.2
$ ls /usr/local/share
applications     emacs  games      man   sgml   xml
ca-certificates  fonts  hibernate  perl  texmf  zsh

I am pretty sure that if you asked about packaging software in the
Python, Perl, Ruby, Java, Lua communities, you would get recommendations
to not use Debian packages at all and get pointers to what the
respective community considers a solution to the packaging problem (if
they see it as a problem at all). This likely involve replacing the
language compiler/runtime itself.

So what? Just take the freedom given to you through the software
licenses and ignore those parts of their view of how things ought to
work and work with the useful parts instead.


Reply to: