Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rust: Add Cargo.lock #1719

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

rust: Add Cargo.lock #1719

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jlebon
Copy link
Member

@jlebon jlebon commented Dec 19, 2018

We've been seeing more breakage recently due to much of the Rust
ecosystem sticking to minimum rustc versions more recent than ours. A
lockfile now means we have to periodically update it, but at least we
have much better control over our CI system and when we want to spend
time resolving package bump conflicts vs. just trying to get a small
patch in.

We've been seeing more breakage recently due to much of the Rust
ecosystem sticking to minimum rustc versions more recent than ours. A
lockfile now means we have to periodically update it, but at least we
have much better control over our CI system and when we want to spend
time resolving package bump conflicts vs. just trying to get a small
patch in.
@cgwalters
Copy link
Member

@rh-atomic-bot r+ c9b6810

@rh-atomic-bot
Copy link

⌛ Testing commit c9b6810 with merge 9a3cd07...

@lucab
Copy link
Contributor

lucab commented Dec 19, 2018

👍 The idea is that top-level consumers (i.e. applications) lock their dependencies, so I think this makes sense even in the long term.

I don't know if you want to automate bumping them, but there are a few stale ones already:

$ cargo outdated -R

Name        Project  Compat  Latest  Kind    Platform
----        -------  ------  ------  ----    --------
gio-sys     0.6.0    ---     0.7.0   Normal  ---
glib        0.5.0    ---     0.6.1   Normal  ---
glib-sys    0.6.0    ---     0.7.0   Normal  ---
indicatif   0.9.0    ---     0.10.3  Normal  ---
serde_yaml  0.7.5    ---     0.8.8   Normal  ---

@jlebon
Copy link
Member Author

jlebon commented Dec 19, 2018

I don't know if you want to automate bumping them, but there are a few stale ones already:

Heh thanks. I still need to get familiar with this workflow now. :) I can bump those, though let's do it in a separate PR so we can iterate against a known working base?

@rh-atomic-bot
Copy link

☀️ Test successful - status-atomicjenkins
Approved by: cgwalters
Pushing 9a3cd07 to master...

@jlebon
Copy link
Member Author

jlebon commented Dec 19, 2018

I can bump those, though let's do it in a separate PR so we can iterate against a known working base?

#1720

jlebon added a commit to jlebon/rpm-ostree that referenced this pull request Jul 8, 2019
For the same reasons we started doing it for the main app:
coreos#1719

This time, it's `getrand` that broke us.
jlebon added a commit to jlebon/rpm-ostree that referenced this pull request Jul 8, 2019
For the same reasons we started doing it for the main app:
coreos#1719

This time, it's `getrand` that broke us.
rust-random/getrandom#15

We should be able to update to 1.35.0 soon, which will unblock this.
jlebon added a commit to jlebon/rpm-ostree that referenced this pull request Jul 9, 2019
For the same reasons we started doing it for the main app:
coreos#1719

This time, it's `getrand` that broke us.
rust-random/getrandom#15

We should be able to update to 1.35.0 soon, which will unblock this.
rh-atomic-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 9, 2019
For the same reasons we started doing it for the main app:
#1719

This time, it's `getrand` that broke us.
rust-random/getrandom#15

We should be able to update to 1.35.0 soon, which will unblock this.

Closes: #1865
Approved by: cgwalters
rh-atomic-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 9, 2019
For the same reasons we started doing it for the main app:
#1719

This time, it's `getrand` that broke us.
rust-random/getrandom#15

We should be able to update to 1.35.0 soon, which will unblock this.

Closes: #1865
Approved by: cgwalters
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants