Juju packaging status

[David Cheney]

Lets *not*, I meant to say.

On 12/04/13 10:12, David Cheney wrote:
>> 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
>