It can be fixed with regeneration, in an ugly way. I patch the generated file after it's been generated, I didn't find a better solution... It could be a bug upstream. However upstream did a major code refactoring to go to version 1.4, so there's no fix that can be cherry-picked from their git history.
But that's not the point. My concern is that if I rebuild the package with code regeneration, the diff with the current package "golang-goprotobuf-dev 1.3.4-2" is much bigger, and I'm afraid that it breaks things. On the other hand, if I just disable code regeneration, the diff with 1.3.4-2 is really minor. So I thought that, given the timeline, it was better to make as little change as possible to this package. On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:32 AM Shengjing Zhu <z...@debian.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 10:16:16AM +0700, El boulangero wrote: > > Hello Go Team, > > > > in order to solve #977652, I would need to modify & rebuild the package > > golang-goprotobuf. > > > > The issue is that this package has many reverse build deps, as you might > > know already: > > > > $ build-rdeps golang-goprotobuf-dev > > ... > > Found a total of 218 reverse build-depend(s) for > golang-goprotobuf-dev. > > > > I did some work already, and it seems that the least invasive way to fix > > #977652 is simply to disable code regeneration and rebuild > > golang-goprotobuf. The diff in the binary package golang-goprotobuf-dev > > will then be very minor. I can post a diff if anyone is interested. > > > > My question is: is it OK to update this package now, or is it too risky, > > and should I wait for after the freeze then? > > I think minor fix is ok. But OTOH I think we want to keep regenerating > files. > Can it be fixed with regeneration? > >
