Skip to content

Conversation

@gRoussac
Copy link
Contributor

Before updating to follow dev branches in #16

Maybe you want to stabilize to use casper-binary-port 1.1.1 and types 6.0.1, like the casper client is doing actually.

otherwise

$ cargo update
    Updating git repository `https://github.com/casper-network/casper-node`
    Updating crates.io index
error: failed to select a version for the requirement `casper-binary-port = "^1.0.0"`
candidate versions found which didn't match: 2.0.0
location searched: Git repository https://github.com/casper-network/casper-node?branch=dev
required by package `casper-binary-port-access v0.1.0 (/opt2/casper/casper-binary-port-client/binary-port-access)`

casper-types = { git = "https://github.com/casper-network/casper-node", branch = "dev", default-features = false }
casper-binary-port = { version = "1.0.0", git = "https://github.com/casper-network/casper-node", branch = "dev" }
thiserror = "2.0.11"
casper-types = { version = "6.0.1" }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mainnet currently uses the node in version 2.1.1 which depends on types in version 6.1.0, shouldn't that be the casper-types version?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@gRoussac gRoussac Jan 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@zajko Honestly it's a bit confusing overall. At the time of this PR it was 6.0.1.

6.0.1 will anyway resolve in 6.1.0 anyway ? https://github.com/casper-ecosystem/casper-binary-port-client/pull/18/files#diff-13ee4b2252c9e516a0547f2891aa2105c3ca71c6d7a1e682c69be97998dfc87eR209

I think a dev branch should be done and casper-client-rs and this crate should have on dev no version and just follow casper node types (8.0.0)

However I think here two versions should be tagged. One for 2.0.4 and one for 2.1.1 and dev no version.

@gRoussac
Copy link
Contributor Author

gRoussac commented Jan 2, 2026

@zajko I don't want to break things, so please merge this PR when you think it's useful and adequate to merge without risk.

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