From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Packaging gx (for IPFS): Need to update default Go to 1.11? Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:40:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20181107204054.GA29657@jasmine.lan> References: <87efbyberv.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87d0ribeg2.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <878t26b0i1.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20181106173116.GA3232@jasmine.lan> <87k1lqyuta.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20181106195712.GB6749@jasmine.lan> <87a7mlz6hv.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87o9b0n9gr.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20181107182642.GA17483@jasmine.lan> <87efbwmyyz.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60534) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gKUeF-0004HO-59 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2018 15:42:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gKUdI-00087h-FU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2018 15:41:03 -0500 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:51519) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gKUdI-000874-9V for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2018 15:41:00 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87efbwmyyz.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Pierre Neidhardt Cc: Guix-devel --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 09:09:24PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > Sure, but isn't this too much a hassle (and more pollution added to the package > namespace) for a temporary workaround? It's a matter of taste :) > Shouldn't we focus on fixing the cache bug in the build system instead? Yes, we should, but that problem is not related to packages not building with Go 1.11 because they need to be updated upstream, right? Even if our go-build-system was updated, those packages would still need to be built with Go 1.9? Or did I misunderstand? --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlvjTdYACgkQJkb6MLrK fwj7fQ/6Ajai0pYqS3VBr0G1atJyH6mb+att9ug68CppvOQz/GUnIk44anlqMiMH dh2aqCxi5YfIhGCLB2yCivHxKxGBCHkbpR0u/QA3iqigodvt2p2acK/26ohbJt6S 8x+w413b8P+AdfuIuaCdKckY8fXJDlRWv+qqmz9S+4r0eMN3oe5oQcTeTkdBZ24+ hQ/Eq8kGfkVw6VzcfPrg6WNY5ey9Zaicp5fBzmQLXAaK56fkM6u+6sK4zsw/fTvH keA/jY/2bBcjyZvJ4HuKygLGdHytH6my+tqh8NA6gjCX05fFzQjdUnr3i2P06GPo eqxWrS7NaAfGZnx6+bwmeGsU6dmzlR3+7R8AF6F8ysv9rIMHbImbk70SjXFv3tgh gPhE+8PcEBvq8jF/xUru0ucOM7+lM7t8RGPPqD6yOm4UIeVfFG8mN3uwDhKLcAck N7poV2D0XFVkvJC1ypUxu1hKmY1SjwFTcSFGw2i9xA92EX5q7M6lFOcGXfcgsr1q 6cpMi7FxUX3TwdKelEvVo5oQoEHukotRLfwhGCsLvQiUGpTkrAmsJph496oirwAp E4sLBz731sD2rEwCZ545YA7aNH8YTf+E9Zpb82XxmRPRMjLynHy6qwn8mjsnCy+5 vDlsqdoSa+UYoijVegP9Si5Cb80fdMPSz8VVM4fMjeleuAo+0h0= =tlIF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J--