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 to rand 0.9 #2144

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 30, 2025
Merged

Upgrade to rand 0.9 #2144

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 30, 2025

Conversation

djc
Copy link
Member

@djc djc commented Jan 28, 2025

Also, getrandom 0.3.

Copy link
Collaborator

@gretchenfrage gretchenfrage left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

WASM CI error. Per message, it looks like we have to pass a new RUSTFLAGS env var in WASM CI?

@gretchenfrage
Copy link
Collaborator

WASM CI error. Per message, it looks like we have to pass a new RUSTFLAGS env var in WASM CI?

Note @matheus23 's suggested patch

Copy link
Collaborator

@gretchenfrage gretchenfrage left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Diff itself looks good! But interested in the 2 remaining CI failures. I'm manually re-running the Solaris test because it seems like it was just flaky. But there's also this audit CI failure relating to libfuzzer licensing:

error[rejected]: failed to satisfy license requirements
  ┌─ registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index#[email protected]:4:36
  │
4 │ license = "(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND NCSA"
  │            ────────────────────────━━━━
  │            │                       │
  │            │                       rejected: license is not explicitly allowed
  │            license expression retrieved via Cargo.toml `license`
  │
  ├ NCSA - University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License:
  ├   - OSI approved
  ├   - FSF Free/Libre
  ├ libfuzzer-sys v0.4.9
    └── fuzz v0.1.0

It's not entirely clear to me why that failure would be new, though.

@Ralith
Copy link
Collaborator

Ralith commented Jan 30, 2025

Also probably not very important since it's just a dev-dep (right?)

@djc
Copy link
Member Author

djc commented Jan 30, 2025

Addressed the audit failure in #2148.

@gretchenfrage gretchenfrage added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 30, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit f4172ea Jan 30, 2025
20 checks passed
@gretchenfrage gretchenfrage deleted the rand-0.9 branch January 30, 2025 23:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants