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

Consider replacing getset crate #209

Open
flavio opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Consider replacing getset crate #209

flavio opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@flavio
Copy link
Collaborator

flavio commented Sep 6, 2024

The getset is consuming the proc-macro-error dependency.

The RUSTSEC-2024-0370 advisory has just been issued because proc-macro-error is no longer maintained.

getset looks unmaintained too, but doesn't have a RUSTSEC advisory assigned to it, yet.

While IMHO this is nothing serious from a security POV, it would be nice to evaluate the feasibility of replacing getset with a similar crate that is actively maintained and doesn't pull in unmaintained dependencies.

@saschagrunert saschagrunert changed the title Consider replacing gset crate Consider replacing getset crate Sep 9, 2024
@saschagrunert
Copy link
Member

@flavio thank you for the report.

@Hoverbear do you think we can make getset independent from proc-macro-error?

@Hoverbear
Copy link

I imagine it would be possible to make that change. @jbaublitz took over the crate sometime a couple years back, perhaps he would be willing to review a PR. (Thanks for reminding me to pass over crate ownership on crates.io)

@jbaublitz
Copy link

Hi @saschagrunert. I have reviewed a PR upstream to update syn to version 2. I have to look into what's pulling in the I unmaintained version a little bit more and see if just updating syn will resolve the issue (out of office at the moment but should have time to take a look at this later today).

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants