On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 1:56 PM Nilesh Patra <nil...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 07:56:23AM +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote: > > Hi Nilesh, > > > This is a package with a lot of (important) reverse-dependencies and this > > > is a minor > > > version (assuming they comply with semver.org) bump. > > > Have you verified that it does not cause any regressions in the > > > reverse-deps > > > with ratt[1] or ruby-team/meta[2]? > > > > > > [1]: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ratt > > > [2]: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/meta > > > > > > I've run ratt on golang-google-grpc, and 22 packages fail to build out of > > 127. > > I'll go through and try to update and/or fix the failing packages. > > > > Does this call for a migration, since it affects a lot of packages? > > If I am not wrong, the situation is (far) more complicated than just this, > sorry I missed > highlighting this earlier. > IIRC, there was some discussion a while back that just running ratt isn't > enough (even for experimental) > and that grpc may break things at run-time as well. It also had some > entanglement with the protobuf > package. >
grpc-go itself shouldn't be a problem, but IIRC the new version requires some packages that need to use new protobuf implementation at runtime, which would cause problems for packages using both old protobuf and grpc-go. For safety, yes please upload to experimental, and people can try rebuilding their packages and test them. > I realise I'm speaking at a very surface level so I am adding in Shengjing > (zhsj) to the > thread and recluse myself from any uploads for this package meanwhile. > > Best, > Nilesh -- Shengjing Zhu