search

bazelbuild / rules_pkg

Bazel rules for creating packages of many types (zip, tar, deb, rpm, ...)
Apache License 2.0
221 stars 174 forks source link

1.0 release #869

Closed aiuto closed 4 months ago

aiuto commented 4 months ago

Just bump the numbers & docs.

kellyma2 commented 3 months ago

@aiuto Are you planning to update latest in BCR?

tonyaiuto commented 3 months ago

I'm sort of stuck on a merge there. I have not figured out a reasonable way to have bzlmod ignore the compatibility level loop between @.*** depending (transitively) on rules_proto, where all versions depend on rules_pkg at level 1.

Updating rules_proto is obviously wrong in 2 ways. It can't work until rules_pkg is already added. It puts the change burden in the wrong repo. Doing a special MODULE.bazel that hard specified rules_proto might work. But that feels wrong too. I don't care what version of proto you get. User workspace should win, followed by tools I depend directly on. It is also tedious, because the bcr tests make sure the module.bazel inside the tarball and given are identical. Which means a dummy release of rules_pkg for each test. That is ugly.

I filed bugs about the difficulty of updating a compatibilty level for any widely used module. I just ran out of time to beat my head against something that is probably better fixed with a bazel flag to not care about version conflicts and a fix to the bcr submit process.

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 2:03 AM Mike Kelly @.***> wrote:

@aiuto https://github.com/aiuto Are you planning to update latest in BCR?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_pkg/pull/869#issuecomment-2182062531, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC22ZWMCRUJTQS6PCX46RILZIO63NAVCNFSM6AAAAABIW5GYUCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOBSGA3DENJTGE . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: @.***>

cgrindel commented 3 months ago

@tonyaiuto If the compatibility level is causing so much pain. Perhaps, we should just put it back to the previous value and document the breaking changes. Personally, I think having a BCR entry for a release is more important than signaling breaking changes with the compatibility level. WDYT?

aiuto commented 2 months ago

That may be the path of least resistance. I don't have the time to figure out a general solution to the transitive loop problem.

I'll send a PR

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 11:18 AM Chuck Grindel @.***> wrote:

@tonyaiuto https://github.com/tonyaiuto If the compatibility level is causing so much pain. Perhaps, we should just put it back to the previous value and document the breaking changes. Personally, I think having a BCR entry for a release is more important than signaling breaking changes with the compatibility level. WDYT?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_pkg/pull/869#issuecomment-2185038101, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXHHHFKYLEVO76MS3MNKILZI3RLTAVCNFSM6AAAAABIW5GYUCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOBVGAZTQMJQGE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>