Update svelte package to Svelte v5

[perryd01]

Package

• lucide
• lucide-angular
• lucide-flutter
• lucide-preact
• lucide-react
• lucide-react-native
• lucide-solid
• lucide-svelte
• lucide-vue
• lucide-vue-next
• Figma plugin
• source/main
• other/not relevant

Version

0.454.0

Can you reproduce this in the latest version?

• Yes
• No

Browser

• Chrome/Chromium
• Firefox
• Safari
• Edge
• iOS Safari
• Opera
• Other/not relevant

Operating system

• Windows
• Linux
• macOS
• ChromeOS
• iOS
• Android
• Other/not relevant

Description

types are not completely compatible with Svelte 5

Steps to reproduce

1. create a project with svelte5
2. try out the Lucide Svelte Typescript Example
3. ComponentType<Icon> is no longer supported

Checklist

• I have searched if someone has submitted a similar issue before and there weren't any. (Please make sure to also search closed issues, as this issue might already have been resolved.)

[youknowedo]

idk... If I understand correctly, the changes made to the Svelte components are in the "compiler." This means that the current lucide-svelte components are still compatible with svelte 5 and the real issue is with the types.

In my very amateur opinion, I think a better option would instead be to make the new Component type in the svelte repo backward-compatible with the ComponentType type (i.e. type Component = { /* type stuff */ } | ComponentType). This makes sure that the lib still is compatible with Svelte 3/4 while getting to use the type Component for everything.

But yeah I might be objectively wrong with this. I don't know how this stuff works really.

EDIT: nvm, @sveltejs/package already figured that stuff out. I think we'll lose Svelte 3 support though. Also, it seems like the components arent compatible with the Component<IconProps> type.

[phenomen]

It would be great if it also was compatible with runes. Right now it throws errors due to $$props deprecation, and it's the only library in my stack that prevents using full rune mode in the Svelte compiler.

[aurelienrichard]

@ericfennis It's my understanding that this issue as well as #2716 can be closed.

[ericfennis]

@aurelienrichard Correct!