Improve backwards compatibility #255
Conversation
|
Context: bazel-contrib/toolchains_llvm#389 |
fmeum
force-pushed
the
bazel-compat
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a87cc29 to
9400a67
Compare
* Gate `module_ctx.extension_metadata(reproducible = True)` usage behind a `bazel_features` check for compatibility with Bazel 6. * Use the "well-known" name `com_google_protobuf` instead of `protobuf` with WORKSPACE to avoid missing deps and duplication of protobuf targets.
| bazel_dep(name = "bazel_skylib", version = "1.7.1") | ||
| bazel_dep(name = "platforms", version = "0.0.10") | ||
| bazel_dep(name = "protobuf", version = "27.0") | ||
| bazel_dep(name = "protobuf", version = "27.0", repo_name = "com_google_protobuf") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is going backwards. We'd like to stop calling com_google_protobuf and use Protobuf only. In case of bzlmod, this should be possible. WORKSPACE files might be more problematic. It'd probably be better to just remove Protobuf dependency. It seems that keeping it creates more problems than needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, removing it would be better. Is that possible though?
I don't see much of a downside to using com_google_protobuf here for as long as the module supports WORKSPACE. The name is entirely internal to this module with Bzlmod and quite breaking when changed with WORKSPACE.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removing it wouldn't break too many people. There are 2 levels. 1 to remove cc_proto_library. I only found 1 project on GitHub using it. 2 is to also remove cc_proto toolchain_type, without introducing an alias back to Protobuf (which I can't introduce until protobuf 29.0 is released)
|
I think everything in this PR has now been merger. |
2 participants
module_ctx.extension_metadata(reproducible = True)usage behind abazel_featurescheck for compatibility with Bazel 6.com_google_protobufinstead ofprotobufwith WORKSPACE to avoid missing deps and duplication of protobuf targets.