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

Upgrade 'which' to remove indirect dependency on 'failure'. #1625

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Upgrade 'which' to remove indirect dependency on 'failure'. #1625

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

prokopyl
Copy link
Contributor

While using bindgen I noticed it brought along the failure crate, but only through the which dependency, and bindgen not even using it itself.

In an effort to remove the dependencies I don't need in my project, I therefore submitted a PR to which (harryfei/which-rs#14) to enable dependent crates to not bring in failure and its dependencies, which is what this PR is about! 😃

This PR upgrades which to version 3.0 and disables its default features, effectively removing the failure dependency from bindgen as well as its sub-dependencies: backtrace, backtrace-sys, and rustc-demangle. Since bingen uses none of them, this is only a dependency change, there is no code change in bindgen itself.

I also noticed #1615 a little too late, and while the issue is similar I believe those two PRs are actually orthogonal: #1615 allows to remove which for the users who don't need to find rustfmt (or use it altogether, which is actually my use-case in the end 🤷‍♂️ ), while this PR makes sure to remove failure and its dependencies across the board, regardless of the user's usage of rustfmt.

Copy link
Contributor

@emilio emilio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, this looks great!

@bors-servo
Copy link

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably 43f8968) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@emilio
Copy link
Contributor

emilio commented Sep 23, 2019

Pushed the rebased version of this in 8fd16b9. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants