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
Bitflags v2 #259
Bitflags v2 #259
Conversation
I rebased from master, it should be good to go |
procfs-core/Cargo.toml
Outdated
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ serde1 = ["serde"] | |||
|
|||
[dependencies] | |||
backtrace = { version = "0.3", optional = true } | |||
bitflags = "1.2" | |||
bitflags = { version = "2", features = ["serde"] } |
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.
This will unconditionally bring in serde
, right?
To avoid that, I think we can have:
[dependencies]
bitflags = { version = "2" }
[features]
serde1 = ["serde", "bitflags/serde"]
(untested by me)
Sorry i'm not super versed about dependencies/features selection I tried the two following snippets:
In both cases,
If I use Any idea? |
Did you make the change in both When I make this change locally, here's what I see:
|
Seems like this was fixed as part of #270 |
Update to bitflags v2, it's a big update
Changelog is not clean yet, so migration path is not complete
See bitflags/bitflags#310
At the moment, I only updated the version, and implemented derived Copy, Clone, Debug, Hash, Eq, PartialEq, PartialOrd, Ord
From the mentioned PR, seems like we'll need to add some repr(transparent) if we want serde to work.
Maybe it's better to wait until the complete migration guide is finished