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

Allow no_std and fewer dependencies #9

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jeddenlea
Copy link
Contributor

@jeddenlea jeddenlea commented Oct 3, 2024

We need to be able to use this crate in a no_std context. Additionally, we cannot make use of the sha2 or sha3 crates. This commit adds a couple of features:

std, which is enabled by default, must be specified in order to use write_keypair_to_file. This was actually the only real dependency on std outside of tests.

I've split the bbsplus feature up. min_bbs enables the algorithms, but does not actually implement either the Sha256 or Shake256 schemes.

Just as written, this cannot yet compile into a no_std context because bls12_381_plus's no_std support is broken, but I'm trying to resolve that in mikelodder7/bls12_381_plus#5.

I've also bumped group to 0.13, which should be nonbreaking because bls12_381_plus 0.8.18 already requires it.

Cargo.toml Show resolved Hide resolved
We need to be able to use this crate in a `no_std` context.
Additionally, we cannot make use of the `sha2` or `sha3` crates.
This commit adds a couple of features:

`std`, which is enabled by default, must be specified in order to use
`write_keypair_to_file`.  This was actually the only real dependency on
`std` outside of tests.

I've split the `bbsplus` feature up. `min_bbs` enables the algorithms,
but does not actually implement either the Sha256 or Shake256 schemes.

I've also bumped group to 0.13, which should be nonbreaking because
bls12_381_plus 0.8.18 already requires it.
@AlbertoSvg
Copy link
Member

@jeddenlea I was thinking of releasing these changes as soon as the ones in bls12_381_plus are accepted and a new version is released, so that I can update the dependency in Zkryptium and then make a single release. What do you think?

@jeddenlea
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @AlbertoSvg, that sounds good to me.

@jeddenlea
Copy link
Contributor Author

Digging into this deeper, it turns out there's still some std links that I missed. I will need to come back to this with something probably a bit more involved. It'll be a couple weeks though.

@jeddenlea jeddenlea closed this Oct 8, 2024
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