Lumos: dependencies or peerDependencies about spore-sdk

[homura]

It depends on how users utilize the Spore SDK.

If we only require Spore SDK methods and not other Lumos methods, then installing the Spore SDK is better.

However, if we need other CKB-related methods in most situations when using Spore SDK, then it's more flexible to use peerDependencies with a ranged version. This approach would be beneficial since we only need one Lumos in the build to create a lighter production build.

BTW, Lumos has refactored the entry package @ckb-lumos/lumos from 0.22, and we don't need to import several child packages in most cases. This will make it simpler when Spore SDK chooses the peerDependencies solution

spore-sdk/packages/core/package.json

Lines 20 to 26 in 6c57341

	"@ckb-lumos/bi": "^0.22.0-next.3",
	"@ckb-lumos/rpc": "^0.22.0-next.3",
	"@ckb-lumos/base": "^0.22.0-next.3",
	"@ckb-lumos/lumos": "^0.22.0-next.3",
	"@ckb-lumos/codec": "^0.22.0-next.3",
	"@ckb-lumos/config-manager": "^0.22.0-next.3",
	"@ckb-lumos/common-scripts": "^0.22.0-next.3",

[ashuralyk]

@ShookLyngs this issue gets a potential resolution for a better experience?

[ShookLyngs]

this issue gets a potential resolution for a better experience?

For now, I suggest we keep the lumos family in the dependencies. Moving them to peerDependencies can potentially introduce other unexpected issues for developers (too many peer dependencies), which is not our intention.

Regarding the improvement resolution, as homura mentioned, if we can reduce the lumos-related dependency count in the spore-sdk, such as only having @ckb-lumos/lumos as a dependency, we can consider moving it to the peerDependencies. This change is unlikely to cause troubles for developers.