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

Bug#1043408: ITP: golang-github-dsnet-compress -- Collection of compression related Go packages.



Hi Nilesh,

Since Nisha hasn't replied, then I'll reply :)

> I wanted to ask a couple of questions before I start with a review:
> 
> * Is there a package that needs dsnet/compress? If so, which one - and
>   is it a crucial dependency?

For me, this is an indirect dependency of vale[1] (golang-github-mholt-archiver depends on this),
and I'm planning on packaging forgejo[2].

> * The README says that:
>       NOTE: This library is in active development. As such, there are no guarantees about the
stability of the API.
>       The author reserves the right to arbitrarily break the API for any reason.
> 
> This does not sound very good in debian's context. Breaking APIs in
> major releases are still OK, but I'm a little concerned about this in
> for instance patch/minor releases.

Commits are very slow and spread out on the repo AFAICS, so I'm not worried about this.

> * There's a compression library https://github.com/klauspost/compress
>   which is already in debian (golang-github-klauspost-compress). The
>   additional functionality that dsnet/compress seems to provide is
>   brotli compression/decompression. If this is not used eventually
>   (assuming this package is dep of another package that you're trying to get in)
>   do you think it'd be possible to patch the code and convince upstream?

brotli (de)compression is not the only functionality that this library provides over
klauspost/compress. The main highlight of dsnet/compress (AFAIK) is that it provides bzip2 support,
whereas klauspost/compress does not. This is why klauspost/compress's README mentions dsnet/compress
at the bottom under the heading "Other packages".

In the case of mholt/archiver, it depends on both klauspost/compress for most operations (working
with zip, gzip, and zstd), and dsnet/compress for bzip2.

Forgejo also depends on both compress packages, so I'm sure this is not unique to mholt/archiver.
 
> In principle I'd have just started with a review and uploaded eventually
> but the API problem made me re-think.

If Nisha doesn't reply (or has lost interest), then I'm happy to be put into Uploaders for this
package and take over this ITP.

Kind regards,
Maytham

[1]: https://bugs.debian.org/1066893
[2]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/go.mod#L28

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: