Am 19.02.26 um 07:10 schrieb Tianon Gravi: > It's a tiny bit tangential, so apologies for that, but I think it > would probably be prudent to finally do something about gccgo too, > while we're opening the hood on src:golang-defaults. > > For a long time now, gccgo has been stuck at an implementation of Go > 1.18, but even then, it's only a *partial* implementation of 1.18 > (notably missing generics). > > As noted and discussed in the CC'd https://bugs.debian.org/961916, > bin:gccgo-go's version is misleading at best and actively harmful at > worst, because it *looks* like it's 1.24, and this is where I think > the overlap with the proposal to update to 1.26 appears - that number > drifts even further from any truth. > > In ideating on solutions, I was thinking about doing something really > goofy, like having bin:gccgo-go have a Version: that's 1.18 or > something, but that ship has sailed (we can't downgrade in the > archive), and it would be really poor behavior for one source package > to do that anyhow. > > So concretely, what I'd propose for src:golang-defaults 1.26+ is that > we remove all traces of gccgo entirely instead. This is somewhat > disruptive, but I don't think it's unreasonable. Every interesting > architecture is currently supported by upstream golang-go, gccgo > hasn't been a suitable GOROOT_BOOTSTRAP for Go itself for several > versions now, and gccgo is a very outdated implementation. On top of > all that, I strongly doubt there are many (if any) meaningful Go > packages left in the archive that really successfully build with > gccgo.
Hi Tianon, thanks for raising this topic. I think it's a very sensible idea. I wouldn't mind dropping gccgo from the golang-defaults package. I've already looked at your MRs on salsa, and from a quick glance, both MRs look good to me (but I haven't tested them yet). However, I'd really like to move the default compiler to golang-1.26 rather sooner than later, because golang-1.24 is no longer supported by upstream after the release of golang-1.26. You know that, most probably. :-) So I'm wondering if it might be better to upload an updated golang-defaults package in the next few days (still *with* gccgo)? We'd have more time to roll out your MRs in a later upload, then. This way, we could wait for more opinions from other golang-compiler team members. On the other hand, I don't know how many people are currently really involved in this team. :-) Regards,Tobias
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
