On Tuesday 25 October 2016 06:10 PM, Martín Ferrari wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/10/16 06:57, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> On Wednesday 12 October 2016 08:19 PM, Martín Ferrari wrote: >>> I need to check with upstream if they are breaking API compatibility for >>> good, and in that case will need to create a new package with a API >>> version embedded. >> >> What do you think the best here now? I have to fix >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=841617 (it needs >> golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go 3.0). >> >> Can I create a new package golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go3? > > I filed a bug upstream (https://github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go/issues/176) > and the upstream author said he plans to keep fixing bugs for 2.x, so > I'd say that having a different package makes sense. > > Two things would need to happen, though: the new package will have to > use a different import path, and dependencies will have to be patched to > use it. Upstream mentioned gopkg.in, so maybe he will switch to that at > some point, but for now, we will have to do it the hackish way. > > The same should probably be done to the v2 package too. > > Also, we should probably discuss with the team the version naming > scheme, since it is possible this will happen more often in the future. > What do you folks think? golang-fooN, golang-foo-vN? >
I chose -vN as that seems the way gopkg.in suggests. I have made changes in master-v3 branch. Can you check it?
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkgfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers