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

Compatibility Meteor 3.0.1 #240

Open
martijnbar opened this issue Aug 6, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Compatibility Meteor 3.0.1 #240

martijnbar opened this issue Aug 6, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@martijnbar
Copy link

It seems there are compatibility issues with Meteor version 3.0.1. I get the following error when trying to add the tap-i18n package (v.2.0.1) to my meteor 3.0.1 application

error: Conflict: Constraint [email protected] is not satisfied by webapp 2.0.0.
Constraints on package "webapp":

@fjmr68
Copy link

fjmr68 commented Aug 19, 2024

Hi,
I have the same problem. Any idea to fix it?

@Marcel-Tronco
Copy link

Hi,
same same here. I just tried running the package with pinning the webapp version to 2.0.0 locally. It worked for me (in a setup with Blaze), but I can't verify that it works with other setups as there's no tests integrated in the repo.

@theosp
Copy link
Collaborator

theosp commented Aug 19, 2024 via email

@Marcel-Tronco
Copy link

No, actually I pinned it in the .versions-file. The docs don't say to much about versioning in packages. They don't mention the .version-file anymore, so maybe it's just a compatibility feature for old packages. Anyways I just tried to delete the file altogether, because as you implied, nowadays versions in a package probably should be pinned in the package.js: and it still works.

@Marcel-Tronco
Copy link

Marcel-Tronco commented Aug 26, 2024

The changelog says:

The constraint solver no longer leaves a versions.json file in your packages source directories; when publishing a package that is not inside an app, it will leave a .versions file (with the same format as .meteor/versions) which you should check into source control.

That's explaining why local development made it seem superfluous anyways.

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