Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:34:05 +0800 From: Christopher Hall <christopherhall.hsw@gmail.com> To: Steve Wills <steve@mouf.net> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Packaging Go Libs Message-ID: <20170418103350.433498f4@arria.bitmark.lan> In-Reply-To: <e34c63fd-8b3d-3bb3-7375-58631b33a50a@mouf.net> References: <e34c63fd-8b3d-3bb3-7375-58631b33a50a@mouf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Steve, On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:20:20 -0400, Steve Wills <steve@mouf.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to propose eliminating packaging of Go libs. For my own go application I use the ports mechanism to specify specific versions of dependencies and it would only have been tested with those; if forces to use an older version it would likely fail as the APIs on some libs have changed quite a lot. So I personally see no need to have any go dependencies in the ports tree. I currently like the idea of having all the go dependencies statically linked and only few external "C" libs as dynamic links as it makes packaging and deployment very quick. > > Almost every Go app is developed with a different version of any given > lib than what another Go app might use. Forcing a Go app to use a > different version than what upstream might have chosen is error prone > at best and likely to produce a build that's unsupported upstream. So > for the packaged libs to even be useful, we would have to have as many > versions of each lib as there are consumers, or nearly as many. > > Further, best practice in the Go community is for Go apps to vendor > all their dependencies and almost all apps do that. This is the > reason most Go apps use different versions of it's libs. > > So to me, packaging Go libs doesn't make sense and I think we should > remove the Go libs from ports. > > Existing ports which use the Go libs should be updated to not use the > Go lib ports by doing one of these, in priority order: > > * Converted to using vendored deps included with the package source if > possible (preferred) > * Fetching the versions of deps specified by upstream (in the case of > vendor.json) > * As a last resort (deps are not included nor versions specified > exactly) fetching versions of deps available at the time of upstream > development > > Further, documentation should be added to the Porters Handbook saying > that we don't package Go libs and portlint should be updated to check > for installing files in GO_SRCDIR and GO_LIBDIR (exceot lang/go*). > > For reference, here's the list of Go lib ports that I found at the > moment: > > archivers/go-compress > databases/gomdb > databases/gosqlite3 > databases/levigo > databases/radix.v2 > databases/redigo > devel/go-bayesian > devel/go-cobra > devel/go-codec > devel/go-cpuid > devel/go-crc32 > devel/go-faker > devel/go-form > devel/go-go.uuid > devel/go-goregen > devel/go-hashicorp-logutils > devel/go-json-rest > devel/go-logrus > devel/go-metrics > devel/go-nuid > devel/go-pflag > devel/go-protobuf > devel/go-raw > devel/go-runewidth > devel/go-slices > devel/go-sql-driver > devel/go-uuid > devel/go-yaml > devel/goprotobuf > net/go-amqp > net/go-geoip > net/go-httppath > net/go-httptreemux > net/go-nats > net/go.net > security/go.crypto > security/goptlib > textproc/go.text > www/go-fasthttp > www/webgo > > Does anyone have any objection or reasoning why this doesn't make > sense? > > Thanks, > Steve > -- Best Regards. Christopher Hall.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170418103350.433498f4>