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: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:33:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20181112173309.GA11864@jasmine.lan> References: <87o9b0n9gr.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20181107182642.GA17483@jasmine.lan> <87efbwmyyz.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20181107204054.GA29657@jasmine.lan> <87d0rgmx59.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20181107210309.GA30589@jasmine.lan> <87wopjlg3u.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87va53l4ke.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87tvknl2p4.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87pnvaljdo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39299) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gMG5Y-0004Dw-Dc for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:33:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gMG5V-0006Or-9b for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:33:28 -0500 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:50017) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gMG5P-0006LQ-OL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:33:21 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pnvaljdo.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 --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:45:07AM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > Alright, I've applied the changes and updated to go-1.11. > Should we remove go-1.9 now? If all of our Go packages are still working with Go 1.11, then it should be safe to remove Go 1.9. We should take care to handle the inheritance of Go 1.11 on Go 1.9 on Go 1.4 correctly. Unfortunately it's a bit tangled... --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlvpuVUACgkQJkb6MLrK fwgTlxAApbCJOEG8zsBLNj8ai1roO6DlBL8rd9oOpWq2EQZW6OmjOxnMyyOEce/c SAECkMW5Nqwl2BoSwC9b9zdKSSyX31bM3M+J1EAC5BLT2jqUBMS1Zmt1vXOuOx6O klZTrvvawV2HJ26T4GGKd8Nz+lZ4Gj61AIbMQ7NJxhV1yHM8GTtWnhUzNbnZWhrP F0xqCZx/IL9rXuj0t9/1JUCCyeIrCCVc22BY1gPOBExD0ri9pSNaPx4L6YYVMsBy doMHG7PxEyX637jftAaHpyY3fMLDyj9xoGYmTVLhU+KUsUd0fOrazGcC07PibLN6 f1W/cQWPO0ABKmEGhldGIxZY8d/OjLEs1oH6ggg3lpjs06PD3Mf3gL/Z5/6JN1V0 kL/PYpt3s9uGXsToiQbTRpmTlr8Owxyyz7WVsfBKxfLJd8Q7eclgPVdBVL1YoIZz Ij4tzoBNGNv/9i+voDxB9q/EQsbU6+9P0RPWi4vd6DP4zp5koqUqErP9jqClQTAx t7lpj+SRSZeICFJ1bf7qN2BkIWjd2Mi5Qnja8lDreJalnCIDwDIeDyW4OXagZeMJ /wYZzMIwFMO9IlTOhBXG8Era7z/K+VzztpBL+yl7VMB0o2HDGK2EhC3BwUDKk8I9 YCtWbhrr0AVRDGV3dl7BrbtLrQfDkxWyK00tCXm70mINfbKmFpc= =bxFn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw--