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