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?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Reply via email to