User Details
- User Since
- Mar 10 2015, 3:53 PM (556 w, 23 h)
Sun, Nov 2
Sat, Nov 1
Fri, Oct 31
They're the same toolchains. They're hashed and downloaded as part of do-fetch, from the same servers that Go itself is distributed, so theoretically they should carry the same risk as the Go ports.
Thu, Oct 30
Does this option also prevent it from behaving like an older version of the toolchain, or does it only affect forward behaviour?
Tue, Oct 28
Thu, Oct 23
Tue, Oct 14
Thu, Oct 9
Wed, Oct 8
Tue, Oct 7
Oct 1 2025
Sep 23 2025
Sep 18 2025
Sep 17 2025
Sep 11 2025
Sep 9 2025
Sep 7 2025
Sep 4 2025
Sep 1 2025
Aug 23 2025
Aug 22 2025
Aug 19 2025
Aug 15 2025
Aug 14 2025
Aug 12 2025
Aug 7 2025
Sorry about the really long silence there. I rolled this into today's updates to go124 and go123. I opted not to change anything lower than that because those ports are EOL upstream and shouldn't exist (it's my fault that they still do). Thank you for submitting this!
Aug 6 2025
Aug 1 2025
Jul 29 2025
Jul 18 2025
Jul 14 2025
Jul 13 2025
Jul 12 2025
Jul 10 2025
Jul 9 2025
Jul 7 2025
Jul 4 2025
Jun 20 2025
Jun 13 2025
Jun 6 2025
Jun 4 2025
Jun 2 2025
May 30 2025
Good catch! I'm definitely in favor of switching, but:
May 28 2025
May 25 2025
May 23 2025
May 22 2025
May 21 2025
So, I should have tagged this review in the commit, but I set go124 as the default as portmgr/pkgmgr seems to be swamped at the moment. Once we see how things build, we'll have a better picture of whether this will be a viable thing.