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

Remove chrono dependency and use transitive time dependency #63

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Rapptz
Copy link

@Rapptz Rapptz commented Mar 14, 2024

While adding this as a dependency to my project, I noticed my dependency tree kind of blew up due to the inclusion of chrono (it added unrelated things related to wasm and Android, for example). In an effort to reduce my dependency count I decided to port over the limited chrono functionality in this repository to use the pre-existing transitive time dependency from x509-parser instead.

I admit to not testing this code, but a look at the documentation, source code of both of these libraries, and running some cargo check to ensure this still compiles I believe the changes here are correct.

@FlorianUekermann
Copy link
Owner

Hi thanks for the PR. chrono might indeed be a bit unnecessary here. But before I remove it I would like to understand why you got so many extra indirect dependencies, because I don't see them in cargo tree:

├── chrono v0.4.31
│   ├── iana-time-zone v0.1.58
│   └── num-traits v0.2.17
│       [build-dependencies]
│       └── autocfg v1.1.0

@Rapptz
Copy link
Author

Rapptz commented Mar 26, 2024

For me, all the dependencies listed here were marked as active. This was changed during a refactor in 0.4.32 as seen here.

I'm testing my branch in production without issue for what it's worth.

OneOfOne added a commit to OneOfOne/rustls-acme that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2024
@Rapptz
Copy link
Author

Rapptz commented May 21, 2024

I've fixed the conflicts in this PR. I've also used this in production for 1 cert renewal period (60 days) with no issues. I'm pretty sure the code as given is correct by this point.

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.

2 participants