Why is dependabot trying to add version numbers “<0.0.1” to Julia standard library packages (e.g. LinearAlgebra, Printf, Logging, ), when I currently just have version number “1” in the Project.toml file? See e.g. Bump the all-julia-packages group with 7 updates - Pull Request #175 - Jutho/KrylovKit.jl - GitHub .
Setting the minimum Julia version to 1.10 would stop it from doing that. See PSA: Compat requirements in the General registry are changing for more details on why it’s doing that for versions below 1.10.
Eben60
October 6, 2026, 8:48am
3
See also PSA: GitHub Dependabot now supports Julia - #17 by Tamas_Papp and the following discussion. Is probably still a bug in your case.
It’s not (as far as I understand it). There was a bug that it happened to Julia versions with compat 1.10 (or above), which have been fixed. OP’s package has compat Julia 1.6, so it’s expected OP gets the PRs.
Indeed.
Here’s a PR to dependabot to add a note to explain it, as it does look odd for those unfamiliar with the issue.
main ← IanButterworth:julia-stdlib-notice
opened 10:19PM - 15 Sep 26 UTC
Claude:
---
### What are you trying to accomplish?
When a project's `julia` c… ompat entry admits releases before 1.10, Dependabot gives each stdlib compat entry a `<0.0.1` bound (#16229). Nothing in the PR says why, so it reads as a bug ([Discourse thread](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/dependabot-strange-behavior-for-julia-standard-library-packages/139851)).
The PR now carries one note, only when an update adds that bound:
> [!NOTE]
> `LinearAlgebra`, `Printf` are standard libraries. Before Julia 1.10, `Pkg.test()` gave standard libraries version 0.0.0, so while the `julia` compat entry admits those releases, a stdlib compat entry needs `<0.0.1` for tests to resolve. Raising the `julia` compat entry to `1.10` or later removes the need for it. See the [stdlib compat PSA](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/psa-compat-requirements-in-the-general-registry-are-changing/104958).
Entries that already had the bound, and other stdlib widenings, get no note.
### Anything you want to highlight for special attention from reviewers?
One change outside `julia/`: `Notice.markdown_mode` mapped INFO to `[!INFO]`, which GitHub does not render as an alert. No ecosystem showed an INFO notice in a PR before; it now maps to `[!NOTE]`.
### How will you know you've accomplished your goal?
New file updater specs cover a stdlib entry gaining the bound (one NOTE notice) and one that already had it (none). Locally `julia/spec` (349 examples), `common/spec/dependabot/notice_spec.rb`, rubocop and `srb tc` (no errors under `julia/`) pass.
### Checklist
- [x] I have run the complete test suite to ensure all tests and linters pass.
- [x] I have thoroughly tested my code changes to ensure they work as expected, including adding additional tests for new functionality.
- [x] I have written clear and descriptive commit messages.
- [x] I have provided a detailed description of the changes in the pull request, including the problem it addresses, how it fixes the problem, and any relevant details about the implementation.
- [x] I have ensured that the code is well-documented and easy to understand.