Juju packaging status

[David Cheney]

> What should be be doing instead? Separate debian packaging for each go
> source dependency does not seem practical at present. Daviey asked
> earlier about using gccgo to avoid the static linking issue, which
> none of the juju team have been testing with, so does not seem like it
> would improve quality at present.

Please lets get sucked into the dynamic/static argument at this time. 
Juju depends on producing a statically linked binary for the tools that 
run on the host. While there are alternative compilers for Go, we don't 
use them, and have designed the product with the static linking nature 
of the default Go compiler in mind.

Cheers

Dave