From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F0AD8BBA8 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:41:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6F1852F478 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:41:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:41:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 005C243F48 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:41:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <80d91d02-36b9-4420-6bf5-73e4031d030d@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:40:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:104.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/104.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> References: <20220822092404.323172-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20220822092404.323172-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.004 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: [pbs-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox] build: use weak and namespaced features X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 11:41:08 -0000 Am 22/08/2022 um 11:24 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: > to reduce the creep of optional dependencies being exposed as features.= >=20 > this requires cargo 0.63 (and debcargo built against at least that > version), but greatly reduces the number of binary packages and provide= s > generated, while still allowing sensible selection of optional > dependencies via the explicit feature meant for pulling them in. >=20 > diff stat for running `make deb` after this change: > proxmox-http/debian/control | 226 ++++------------------------= -------- > proxmox-router/debian/control | 74 +----------- > proxmox-schema/debian/control | 53 ++------- > proxmox-subscription/debian/control | 17 +-- > proxmox-sys/debian/control | 51 +++----- > proxmox-tfa/debian/control | 110 ++---------------- > 6 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 459 deletions(-) >=20 > the 'dep:' prefix marks something on the RHS inside the features sectio= n > as dependency, it's only allowed if the string after it is an optional > dependency an no explicit feature of the same name exists. if all > pointers to the optional dependency in the features section are marked > as such, the optional dependency itself will not be exposed as a featur= e > (either on the cargo or debian/control level). >=20 > the '?' suffix marks dependencies as "weak", which only enables the > optional dependency + its feature(s) if the optional dependency itself > is also enabled. it has no effect on d/control since such a relationshi= p > is not encodable in Debian package relations, but it does affect cargo > dependency resolution and allows skipping the build of unneeded optiona= l > dependencies in some cases. >=20 > with no packages/crates depending on the no longer exposed automaticall= y > generated features/packages, so these are safe to remove even though > it's technically a breaking change. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> > --- > sent as patch to wait for cargo 0.63 regressions before applying >=20 > proxmox-http/Cargo.toml | 26 ++++++++++++++------------ > proxmox-router/Cargo.toml | 2 +- > proxmox-schema/Cargo.toml | 4 ++-- > proxmox-subscription/Cargo.toml | 2 +- > proxmox-sys/Cargo.toml | 4 ++-- > proxmox-tfa/Cargo.toml | 6 +++--- > 6 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >=20 > applied, thanks!