Skip to content
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

Update liquid dependency to 0.20 #879

Closed
ignatenkobrain opened this issue Mar 22, 2020 · 7 comments
Closed

Update liquid dependency to 0.20 #879

ignatenkobrain opened this issue Mar 22, 2020 · 7 comments
Labels
feature-request New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@ignatenkobrain
Copy link
Contributor

I'm now working on updating bat to 0.13 in Fedora and we have liquid 0.12 while bat depends on 0.19... Would it be possible to update this dependency?

@ignatenkobrain ignatenkobrain added the feature-request New feature or request label Mar 22, 2020
@sharkdp sharkdp added good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Mar 22, 2020
@sharkdp
Copy link
Owner

sharkdp commented Mar 22, 2020

It's certainly possible, but there are a few breaking changes in liquid 0.20, and it doesn't work out of the box.

@ignatenkobrain
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sharkdp will send PR in 10 minutes or so.

@sharkdp
Copy link
Owner

sharkdp commented Mar 22, 2020

Sounds great.

Note that liquid is a build-only dependency. So it shouldn't really matter for packaging, as long as it is a binary package (not a from-source build), right?

@ignatenkobrain
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sharkdp #880 :)

It does matter. We build everything from source.. As any other sane free linux distributions :)

@sharkdp
Copy link
Owner

sharkdp commented Mar 22, 2020

Understood. I thought there would be binary RPM/DEB-style packages that end-users could install directly without building from source (while maintainers would obviously need all dependencies to build the package in the first place).

Does this mean that we need a new release for Fedora?

@ignatenkobrain
Copy link
Contributor Author

Understood. I thought there would be binary RPM/DEB-style packages that end-users could install directly without building from source (while maintainers would obviously need all dependencies to build the package in the first place).

Yes, sure. Users won't need it, but I am a maintainer so I need to package all dependencies :)

No, we don't necessarily need a new release. I can just backport it.

@sharkdp
Copy link
Owner

sharkdp commented Mar 22, 2020

Ok, thank you!

closed via #880

@sharkdp sharkdp closed this as completed Mar 22, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature-request New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants