-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Proposal: supporting “symlinks” in GOPATH #15507
Comments
A few comments/questions:
|
The first footnote gives details - it's the same definition as assumed here. But I agree the question still remains whether "repository" is formally defined somewhere?
Open question - I admit the only consideration thus far has been for code that is part of a "repository". I've added an "open questions" section at the bottom referencing this question.
Indeed that's one approach to share vendored code between binaries. But the "symlink" approach helps to facilitate the approach of sharing that "vendor" with the library code (see next point)
This proposal by itself does not, no. But the repository linked to from the "Motivating example" section outlines how that problem can be solved by using a combination of "symlinks" and GOPATH augmentation. |
Symlinks are too problematic. It seems unwise to allow them. |
On the back of #15201 (comment)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n5y3mZPs_4PjI80a0vZEaHLe7r9PeiiE9xsIrQFT8Is/edit
Thanks to @kardianos for sharing his initial thoughts offline
The name "symlink" is bound to prompt a good discussion in and of itself: I would hope we can discuss names/naming separately from the crux of the proposal
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: