On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:43:19 -0400 Vincent Batts <vbatts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 22/09/13 14:34 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:07:20AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> I'm beginning to _strongly_ believe that we should follow the > >> debian idea here: > >> https://wiki.debian.org/MichaelStapelberg/GoPackaging and not > >> package pre-compiled Go libraries at all (outside of the standard > >> library). > > > >Update -- "official" debian guidelines are at: > > > >http://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/packaging.html > > > >(based on the previous link above but more fleshed-out). > > so here is something else to vet out, like the work done for the ruby > RPMS. Since there is support API versioning for the go language, how > best to accommodate that in the requires/provides? Currently the > language spec is 'go1', so everything in the 1.x version _will_ comply > to this spec. Eventually they'll have a go2, etc. > > Should the 'golang' package have a: > Provides: golang(release) = 'go1' > > The binaries would have a BuildRequires and libraries would Require, > to match the API version? and what about the go compiler in the GCC? Its advantage is broader architecture support than golang which is x86/x86_64/arm only. Dan -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
