Hello, Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:38:43PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: >> Using the domain name as part of the *upstream* library name is useful >> for upstream authors because of how Go's built-in dependency management >> tools work. Go integrates dependency management into the language and >> the `go` tool itself. Re-using the upstream library name is useful >> because they have already disambiguated for us. >> >> I don't intend to be rude, but I'm not going to put much effort into >> responding to further comments that are not based on knowledge of how Go >> handles package / dependency management with its built-in tools, or >> modular programming in Go, in general. Already I used tons of my free >> time to learn this stuff, just so I could make Guix packages of Go >> software. Please meet me where I am. >> >> Again, I don't see an ethical problem here, so any motivation for me to >> participate in this discussion, as a volunteer, must be technical. If >> it's *wrong* to name the packages in this way, I will behave >> differently. > > I replied too harshly here, and I apologize for that. For me, this > conversation really started on the wrong foot. I agree this conversation could have been more cheerful! I understand your irritation; let me use this opportunity to thank you for your hard work and time spent working on bringing Go to Guix! There seems to be interesting solutions built with Go. I'm trying to rectify my ignorance of the Go system; I've started reading about Go but haven't gone so far yet to be able to answer my question in a definitive way. I'll keep reading! I've seen that Debian is also using the repo names in their go packages naming scheme, so there must be some good to it. Maxim
