Closed davidsblog closed 7 years ago
So I'm wondering if the practice of using #head in a dependency is more likely to break?
No... if you're using a bleeding release of Nimble then things are likely to break: https://github.com/nim-lang/nimble/issues/289
Fair enough, I was just making a suggestion... But I haven't figured out where to find a stable release of Aporia Nimble yet, so perhaps I should do that instead :-)
nimble install aporia
should work now to get you a stable release of aporia. Nimble grabs the latest tagged version by default, which is typically more stable than the git HEAD.
That's great! I've just done that and it has worked perfectly. I appreciate that.
Out of curiosity, is there such a thing as a stable release of Nimble (I'm using Nim 0.15.2)? I'm wondering if there is a better Nimble version than the one I'm using (I used the install_nimble.nims
script from 0.15.2 to install it). I'm guessing that has given me the bleeding edge release of Nimble.
The stable release of Nimble is typically the latest tagged release. The install_nimble.nims
script shouldn't install bleeding edge, please report that on the Nim repo :)
Cool. I will double-check versions from the install_nimble.nims
and pulling the latest from GitHub just in case I've done something silly. But if the script does give me the same version then I'll report it. Cheers.
At the moment, I cannot build Aporia with nimble, I get an error about version conflicts of the GTK wrapper. However, if I hack the
aporia.nimble
file and remove#head
from the GTK2 dependency then it will build fine. So I'm wondering if the practice of using#head
in a dependency is more likely to break? Would it be a more reliable build if dependencies always used a version number? Just a thought...