-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 188
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Various dependency updates #265
Conversation
7d1131c
to
ca01307
Compare
netlink-request/Cargo.toml
Outdated
netlink-sys = "0.8.5" | ||
netlink-packet-core = "0.5" | ||
netlink-packet-generic = "0.3.2" | ||
netlink-packet-route = "0.15.0" | ||
netlink-packet-utils = "0.5.2" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was there something released which requires us to specify the patch versions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah this reminds me a discussion with @goodhoko in tonarino/acoustic_profiler#12 (comment).
As innernet is shipped as a binary and not a library, I don't think we need to aim for maximum possible version range for dependencies (which is tedious if done correctly, per reasoning in the linked thread). So I'm cool with specifying also the patch versions. But not saying I'd prefer it - we have Cargo.lock
for reproducibility/tracking known-good versions.
Only thing that tickles my OCD is saying 0.15.0
instead of 0.15
(these 2 are strictly equivalent), but OTOH that is consistent with other lines..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've gotten into the habit after discussions at work about this - specifying a higher and more specific semver prevents any bugs in previous versions from showing up when cargo decides for whatever reason to use it instead. For example, I actually had a bug with an earlier patch release in the netlink crate family not compiling.
Happy to get rid of that extra '0' for you @strohel :).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes look good and my testing on macos was fine. Just a few questions about patch versions and some minor code changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was long overdue, thanks a lot! Just adding some questions and follow-ups to Brian's comments.
client/src/main.rs
Outdated
@@ -1170,7 +1169,7 @@ fn print_peer(peer: &PeerState, short: bool, level: usize) { | |||
|
|||
fn main() { | |||
let opts = Opts::parse(); | |||
util::init_logger(opts.verbose); | |||
util::init_logger(opts.verbose as u64); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit: we can/should change init_logger() signature instead
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doy - left that in while I was just playing around with clap changes. Changed.
netlink-request/Cargo.toml
Outdated
netlink-sys = "0.8.5" | ||
netlink-packet-core = "0.5" | ||
netlink-packet-generic = "0.3.2" | ||
netlink-packet-route = "0.15.0" | ||
netlink-packet-utils = "0.5.2" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah this reminds me a discussion with @goodhoko in tonarino/acoustic_profiler#12 (comment).
As innernet is shipped as a binary and not a library, I don't think we need to aim for maximum possible version range for dependencies (which is tedious if done correctly, per reasoning in the linked thread). So I'm cool with specifying also the patch versions. But not saying I'd prefer it - we have Cargo.lock
for reproducibility/tracking known-good versions.
Only thing that tickles my OCD is saying 0.15.0
instead of 0.15
(these 2 are strictly equivalent), but OTOH that is consistent with other lines..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM again, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Post-merge LGTM++, thanks!
This was a long time coming, and I figured I might as well be the one to take care of some of the boring stuff :).