On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:14 PM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 9/12/19 5:23 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > Putting the dependencies in RDEPEND means users get stuck with yet
> > another copy of the code installed, in addition to the copy that is
> > statically linked into all reverse dependencies.
> >
> > It's not a very good solution to the problem.
> >
>
> No argument there. The elegant solution to static linking is to not do
> it. But I guess that's off the table? So now we're trying to find the
> best not very good solution.
>
>
Well I think you end up with a weird tradeoff here.

Most people who build and package go-based packages use static compilation,
so we could in theory build dynamically linked executables, but then we
diverge from the upstream practice.
Maybe this is the right approach, but I think its a bunch of extra
engineering work (to make things build dynamically) and will be pretty
different from what upstream is expecting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nr-TQHw_er6GOQRsF6T43GGhFDelrAP0NqSS_00RgZQ/edit
describes
the new execution modes; it even discusses this very topic!

"This mode is mainly intended to support distro builders.  They can
distribute Go packages or groups of packages as shared libraries, and can
thus update all Go programs by updating the shared libraries, without
requiring the programs to be relinked."

I wonder who pushed for this to Ian, and whether distros ended up using
this kind of target?

-A