Re: rm golang-github-traefik-yaegi?
Hi Go team, Nilesh,
Yaegi has been packaged as part of an ongoing effort to get Traefik
into the archive.
See: https://people.debian.org/~creekorful/traefik.html
As of Traefik v3.5 Yaegi is still required for the packaging, see:
https://github.com/traefik/traefik/blob/10be359327116c78fba4e404fb64f91a2044258b/go.mod#L74
If nobody objects to it I would like to keep the package in the main
archive if it still builds.
I'll get in touch with the maintainers to check whether it is still
needed for the latest Traefik versions or if it is possible to get
Yaegi compatible with Go > 1.24.
Cheers,
Le mar. 21 oct. 2025 à 21:37, Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org> a écrit :
>
> Hi again,
>
> As I received no objection, I shall wait until around Christmas, if I receive
> no response or no objections, I'll proceed with a -rm req.
>
> Thanks
> Nilesh
>
> On 19/10/25 12:06 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> > Adding Aloïs
> >
> > On 18/10/25 10:22 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> >> Hi Aloïs, go team,
> >>
> >> golang-github-traefik-yaegi was a cool package that Aloïs and me worked on together
> >> to get into the archive back in 2021.
> >>
> >> However, yaegi (being a go interpreter) needs to catch up to the go compiler versions
> >> which we upload to unstable. The upstream development is slower than the pace at which
> >> the actual go compiler moves.
> >>
> >> It is still stuck to compatibility with go 1.22 version. I struggled during the time
> >> of bookworm release to somehow get it in stable, however it missed the trixie release
> >> due to being incompatible with go 1.24 and it needs non-trivial amount of work to get
> >> it working, and this needs to be done upstream.
> >>
> >> Even now there is a github issue asking them to support go 1.24 and the last commit is
> >> 5 months back.
> >>
> >> With this, I don't think we will ever be able to reliably ship this package.
> >>
> >> Do you think it makes sense to go ahead with a removal for the same?
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/traefik/yaegi/issues/1703
> >>
Reply to: