Ignas Anikevicius

Closing this ticket as fixing #1857 would fix this as well.

Re-opening because there is a PR that will address the cross-building of the gazelle plugin.

I previously thought that it is due to bazel version upgrade and not because of rules_python changes. Could somebody verify if the same bug exists in 0.30? I think that...

I tested with `rules_python` 0.28 through 0.31 and the result is the same with the latest `bazel`. It seems that the problem is because we reference `@bazel_tools//tools/cpp:current_cc_toolchain` [here][1]. And the...

You are correct, the offending commit is https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/commit/18955851947002ea39854b5d2aa3e6fa81ef8bf3 I ran: ```bazelisk --bisect=6.0.0..HEAD build //:hello``` @rickeylev looking at the list in https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/15897 it does not seem that this incompatibility was expected.

I am not sure where the code that needs to be fixed lives, it could be in both repos since the starlark implementation of rules python lives in rules_python as...

What about using something like ``` import pyvisa_py as _ ``` Or modifying deps and adding `keep` directivev These are two other options that allow us to handle this in...

I think the comment in python code controlling data is super neat. I would gate this feature under some boolean gazelle directive so that we can enable it everywhere at...

Thinking about this more, I do think that the data management through comments in code has to stay opt-in. We could make it opt out instead where you would have...

I think I've identified at least multiple changes that can be separate PRs: - [x] refactor groups to be created inside the hub repo. #1856. - [x] add tests for...