[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: seeking review of pat 0.19.1



Federico Grau <donfede@casagrau.org> writes:

> *** Might there be any tips or examples to identify and check "[Golang]
> reverse builds"?

https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/#build-reverse-dependencies

> Admittedly, my focus has been predominantly around `pat'.  Definitely don't
> want to break other packages during my updates.

Then unless you run into build errors, don't worry about version
mismatches on build dependencies.  If you do get build errors, you
should start to suspect some build dependency has the wrong version.

> The vendoring of pat-vara was implemented by another contributor; the limited
> potential audience to use that Golang library/package may have been part of
> the reasoning to use vendoring.  Unless there is alternate guidance, at this
> juncture I'd be inclined to leave pat-vara as is for now, and maybe revisit
> that later in 2026.

I didn't look at how large pat-vara is, but if it is larger than a
couple of files or a hundred of lines of code, it may be rejected by
ftp-masters.  There is no alternative guidance on this, the default is
to package dependencies as they are, without vendoring.  There are many
exceptions to this though, sometimes reasonable, but that's the idea at
least.

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: