On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:52 AM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 9/12/19 12:42 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> >
> > In general I don't see bundling as a major problem. In the land of
> > dynamic binaries, it's a big advantage because you can upgrade libfoo
> > and all consumers of libfoo get the upgrade upon process restart. This
> > isn't true for most go programs which are statically linked; so you end
> > up asking yourself "why should I make a package for every go module?"
> > One obvious answer is that portage then tracks what packages are
> > consuming a given module and you can plausibly write a tool that does
> > things like "moduleX has a security update, please recompile all
> > packages that DEPEND on moduleX" which seems like a tool people would
> want.
> >
>
> Subslots do this already. Portage does this already. We have this "tool
> that people would want," but only if developers can be bothered to
> package things.
>

Sure; and I listed this as an option. It's certainly not the only option.


>
>
> > [0] I feel like this is a common idea in Gentoo throughout. Anything new
> > is bad. Anything that violates norms is bad. Anything that violates the
> > model we have been using for 20 years is bad. I wish people were more
> > open to have a discussion without crapping on new ideas quite so
> thoroughly.
>
> This is computer *science*. Some ideas are just wrong, and nothing of
> value is gained by trying not to hurt the feelings of the flat-earthers.
>

Er, I'm fairly sure computer *science* has not conclusively proven that
dynamic binaries are somehow superior to static binaries.

-A