Skip to content

Conversation

@attila-lin
Copy link

@attila-lin attila-lin commented May 7, 2025

as async-std has been discontinued. move to tokio

@attila-lin
Copy link
Author

hi @Fredrik-Reinholdsen sorry for the ping!

I'm trying to move your async-vfs to tokio, but the ci failed. But I tried in windows. Do you have some idea?

@manuel-woelker
Copy link
Owner

Hi there, thanks for the PR.

Just a quick heads up: I have to admit I don't feel confident enough in my expertise with async rust in general and tokio in particular to adequately review and support a tokio variant. I may even have to sunset the current async-std variant.

It might be worth looking into forking this project into a separate tokio-vfs crate.

@manuel-woelker
Copy link
Owner

Quick note on the CI failing: It looks like the lock file has a different version, cf. https://github.com/manuel-woelker/rust-vfs/actions/runs/14877441640/job/41777455425?pr=74
The CI pipeline uses a rather ancient cargo version, while you probably have a newer one installed.

Things to try:

  1. Try updating the action versions in the github workflow here: https://github.com/manuel-woelker/rust-vfs/blob/master/.github/workflows/compile.yml
  2. The other option might be to try to generate a "legacy" lockfile using an older cargo version.

@Fredrik-Reinholdsen
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Manuel,
I understand, and it is your project. You do what you think is right!
Would be happy create and maintain a fork in that case since I use this for work.
Happy to help out if it remains part of this repo too of course.

Agree that the lockfile is wrong.
I could have a go at fixing the issue this weekend

@Fredrik-Reinholdsen
Copy link
Contributor

@attila-lin The reason has to do with the checked out lockfile. Lockfile version 4 was stabilized in Rust 1.78, and the minimum required Rust version is 1.63 which is significantly older. You could try just manually changing the version in the lockfile to 3 instead of 4 and see if that works, because they should be backwards compatible.

The other option would be to increase the, but that I do not think is a great idea because it would be a significant jump, and it should be possible without this.

@attila-lin
Copy link
Author

I got it. Let me try.

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.

5 participants