-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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 protobuf to 4.23.4 #22
Conversation
Linter check found the following problems:The following problems have been found:ERROR: clone/recipe/meta.yaml:1: patch_must_be_in_build: patch must be in build when source/patches is set. |
94b752f
to
92d89c8
Compare
Linter check found the following problems:The following problems have been found:ERROR: clone/recipe/meta.yaml:1: patch_must_be_in_build: patch must be in build when source/patches is set. |
92d89c8
to
50c68f6
Compare
Linter check found the following problems:The following problems have been found:ERROR: clone/recipe/meta.yaml:1: patch_must_be_in_build: patch must be in build when source/patches is set. |
50c68f6
to
17d9159
Compare
Linter check found the following problems:The following problems have been found:ERROR: clone/recipe/meta.yaml:1: patch_must_be_in_build: patch must be in build when source/patches is set. |
Linter check found the following problems:The following problems have been found:ERROR: clone/recipe/meta.yaml:1: patch_must_be_in_build: patch must be in build when source/patches is set. |
Linter check found the following problems:The following problems have been found:ERROR: clone/recipe/meta.yaml:1: patch_must_be_in_build: patch must be in build when source/patches is set. |
ecc9a57
to
f0cf80e
Compare
Linter check found the following problems:The following problems have been found:ERROR: clone/recipe/meta.yaml:1: patch_must_be_in_build: patch must be in build when source/patches is set. |
Linter check found the following problems:The following problems have been found:ERROR: clone/recipe/meta.yaml:1: patch_must_be_in_build: patch must be in build when source/patches is set. |
3cfbe16
to
0499a4b
Compare
0499a4b
to
6db812a
Compare
20f6324
to
a2084e2
Compare
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
# One exception was that 3.6.1 was incompatible with 3.6.0 | ||
- {{ pin_subpackage('libprotobuf', max_pin='x.x') }} | ||
# protobuf now (intentionally) increments the SOVER with every patch release, which | ||
# breaks tools like grpc_plugin_cpp if they get the wrong libprotoc at runtime, see |
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.
Should we additionally test such (and other) downstream packages to verify that they can be built fine?
My thoughts are directed by this major version bump...
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.
yes, doing it now, will push on the same channel
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
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.
These all look reasonable to me.
protobuf >= 4.0.0, required for snowflake dbt
upstream
replaced abseil-cpp git submodule with conda package
replaced jsoncpp git submodule with conda package
replaced gtest git submodule with conda package
removed unnecessary patches
based on CF with small changes/tweaks