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

Why not publish the 17.0 version of ethabi-derive and ethabi-contract #275

Open
KaoImin opened this issue Jul 27, 2022 · 11 comments
Open

Why not publish the 17.0 version of ethabi-derive and ethabi-contract #275

KaoImin opened this issue Jul 27, 2022 · 11 comments

Comments

@KaoImin
Copy link

KaoImin commented Jul 27, 2022

https://crates.io/crates/ethabi-contract
https://crates.io/crates/ethabi-derive

@vkgnosis
Copy link
Member

This wasn't a conscious choice. However now in hindsight I would still say that all the development in this repository only concerned the main ethabi library. The other crates saw no changes so I am not sure if they need new versions.

Do you think they should have new versions?

@ulrichard
Copy link

ulrichard commented Sep 29, 2022

If you have the following in your Cargo.toml
ethabi = "17.0" ethabi-contract = "16.0" ethabi-derive = "16.0"
ethabi-derive = "16.0" will also pull in ethabi = "16.0" which in turn pulls in two different versions of ethereum-types.

@nlordell
Copy link
Contributor

This is a good point, and I think we should publish v17 ethabi-* crates. Would you mind making a PR with version updates? We can publish once its merged.

@vkgnosis
Copy link
Member

I feel like I commented this in another issue already but we don't have the ability to publish the other crates on crates.io anyway.

@ulrichard
Copy link

Quickly glancing over the code in the master branch, it looks like the versions are already fine.
But why don't you have the ability to publish the other crates?

@vkgnosis
Copy link
Member

We don't have crates.io ownership over the other crates. This project was originally developed by Parity developers while some people from rust-ethereum give it life support now. When we moved ownership I think we simply forgot the other two crates and this is the first issue where anyone noticed.

@ulrichard
Copy link

Ok, I understand.
Do you have contacts at Parity, who you could ask to add you to the other projects at crates.io?

@vkgnosis
Copy link
Member

(Sorry for being too terse before.) We can try. The first ownership change was difficult because the person owning the crates on crates.io for Parity no longer works there (?) and has been hard to reach. I'm not sure if investing time into this is worth it because of the few people that use the non main ethabi crate and because those crates haven't received any updates except for the ethabi version bump.

@ulrichard
Copy link

I see. The problem I have at the moment is, that I wanted to update a dependency in a completely different part of our software, and it led to an incompatibility here. Replacing ethabi-contract and ethabi-derive with something else could be quite an effort for little reward.
I even tried to specify the git repo directly instead of crates.io in my Cargo.toml, but that also doesn't work because another crate has a sub dependency to the ethabi from crates.io.

@nlordell
Copy link
Contributor

I even tried to specify the git repo directly instead of crates.io in my Cargo.toml, but that also doesn't work because another crate has a sub dependency to the ethabi from crates.io.

You can try a [patch] instead... although you would have to keep everything on 16.0 (so your git revision should change ethabi's Cargo.toml to v16 instead of bumping ethabi-* to v17).

We can try.

I think we can reach out. But as @vkgnosis said, I wouldn't hold your breath.

@ulrichard
Copy link

Cool, using [patch] I could solve it for now. I never used that before.
It would still be better to publish them however.

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