I agree with breaking up utils. I've certainly read similar comments elsewhere that calling something 'utils' inherently causes issues like this, and it seems to fit with our experience.
I also agree that X stable depending on Y unstable doesn't seem right. Though we're also very bad at ever making a genuine release of dependencies. (it's a lot of overhead if nobody else is actually consuming them) There are probably other small things like it is "mgo/bson" where bson should really be it's own package. Also some questions about how well packages avoid leaking. (charmstore uses mgo as a backend. if it doesn't expose those types then we probably don't care if some of our tree depends on it while the other part doesn't. At least as a transition phase.) John =:-> On Apr 4, 2018 06:19, "Tim Penhey" <tim.pen...@canonical.com> wrote: Which then begs the question... Why do we have stable gopkg.in branches depending on unstable branches? i.e. gopkg.in/juju/charmstore.v5 depending on gopkg.in/macaroon-bakery.v2-unstable? This seems to smell bad. Tim On 04/04/18 14:17, Tim Penhey wrote: > As a follow on... > > I'd like to move juju to only use "stable" dependency branches. No more > '-unstable'. > > Tim > > On 04/04/18 12:52, Tim Penhey wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> Juju has a problem with its dependencies. We have been trying to upgrade >> a number of our dependencies recently have have been hitting road >> blocks. Mostly because of changes to common libraries that are >> incompatible with other libraries that we use. >> >> I'm pretty sure that the root of all these problems is the juju/utils >> package. It has become a dumping ground for any common functions that >> packages may want to share. However these common functions are changed >> arbitrarily with only thoughts around how they impact a subset of the >> downstreams of juju/utils. >> >> I think that the only sane way forward is to move all the functionality >> we care about out of juju/utils into more cohesive, smaller, packages >> that have meaningful names and you should be able to determine what they do. >> >> Where the current clashes came from were a few places. >> 1) we wanted to change our mgo dependency >> 2) a new file path utility function was wanted >> 3) the debugstatus package inside utils was updated in a backward >> incompatible way >> >> The root problem here is that the utils package tries to do too many >> things. Any package called "utils" should be a warning, and we should >> have listened to Dave Cheney when he brought this up originally. >> >> I think the way forward is to break up the utils package. I'd like to >> propose that we don't add anything new to the utils package, and only >> deletions are allowed. We create new packages that contain the >> functionality we require, and have them be much more controlled on their >> own dependencies. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Tim >> > -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
