Go 1.3 is unmaintained/unsupported upstream

Martin Pitt martin.pitt at ubuntu.com
Sat Feb 14 16:00:29 UTC 2015

Robie Basak [2015-02-13 17:39 +0000]:
> But this is the way the world is going, and something I think Ubuntu
> needs to adapt to.

I heavily disagree for something as fundamental as a
toolchain/compiler, but we've had this conversation a lot of times
already :)

> I'm not sure how, though. In theory, if their quality is good, could
> we SRU and rely on their backward compatibility guarantee?

It's great to hear that there now is some effort to maintain backwards
compatibility. When we started to adopt Go, there wasn't even that,
but it was still in the early stage of "anything goes". If there is
some enforced backwards compatibility now, it does sound prudent to
re-discuss the maintenance/upgrades indeed.

> Would we really need to rebuild all reverse dependencies?

If we'd update Go in a stable release, then we must make sure that all
reverse dependencies are still *buildable* and still work without a
regression. IMHO they don't actually need to be rebuilt as SRUs too in
the sense of doing 70 no-change uploads. We'd only need to upload
those reverse deps which need sourceful changes to build and/or work
with a new Go compiler (and then need to have an SRU exception for

Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20150214/bf92ec31/attachment.sig>

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list