Duniter is based on its own fork of Substrate
this first repository has 517 branches but we only use two of them (currently duniter-substrate-v0.9.26 and master). We should remove some because it makes the repo heavier than needed (363.00 Mio).
According to this stackexchange answer, upgrading to v0.9.28 will fix the mentioned logging issue I’m also facing.
Last month, @elois created the branch v0.9.32 and rebased his commits. But since he took a break in the project, he did not finished upgrading dependencies in Duniter. Is there anybody who would like to try upgrading the substrate version used by Duniter?
You could take example on previous upgrades:
I would like to try to do this, and maybe write a documentation about all the things to do for upgrading, if needed.
He said he was going to continue to update the substrate fork, but this was before he took more distance with the project.
1 Like
Updating substrate from v0.9.26 to 0.9.32
Substrate framework is still young and is evolving a lot. It can be painful to update the framework since it requires changing a lot of things in the whole codebase. Huge thanks to @tuxmain who completed this update in MR !121. It seems to have been painful:
We still have a point to complete related to try-runtime, but I think we can keep it like this until we get to the point where we are able to perform these kind of operations.
6 Likes
Si, on est toujours sous copyleft AGPL v3. Quelque chose indique le contraire ?
Substrate et Polkadot sont sous GPLv3+, et les autres dépendances sont le plus souvent sous licences permissives (MIT/Apache surtout). C’est compatible dans ce sens-là .
1 Like
On n’a pas changé la licence du fork Substrate, parce que les modifications faites sont minimes, aucune fonctionnalité. Ce fork ne sert qu’à pouvoir faire des correctifs pour la compatibilité et gérer nos versions plus facilement.
Le code de Duniter lui-même est bien sous copyleft même s’il utilise du code sous licence permissive.
2 Likes
Out of curiosity I’ve built a docker image from this branch plus the chainspec from @poka’s branch. I first tested it on my RPC node. The best part of it is that I don’t need this option anymore \o/
I then upgraded my smith node and all have been running fine so far.
3 Likes
@cgeek ou @kimamila ou @moul, est-ce que vous pouvez ajouter @tuxmain et @HugoTrentesaux au groupe “duniter” sur github ? (People · Duniter · GitHub)
Comme ça je peux ajouter @bgallois au fork de Substrate pour la prochaine mise-à -jour.
Quelqu’un semble l’avoir fait.
Moul l’a fait, on en a discuté sur le canal xmpp
Parity tech recently reorganized their repos under a single one:
- https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/ (archived)
- https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk (new one)
And published a version 1.0 of substrate. This will cause some additional effort for the next update.
1 Like
Let’s hope that Substrate remains uncoupled from Polkadot. They say it should not change anything from this point of view but maybe they won’t make too much efforts for maintaining Substrate for anything else than Polkadot…
1 Like
Yes they should. The idea of polkadot is a blockchain network. Its value comes from the parachains connected to it, substrate goal is to make parachain developement easier.
1 Like
My worry is that they may focus on making a Polkadot parachain framework instead of a general blockchain framework.
2 Likes