echo 'pandas==2.1.3' > constraints.txt pip install -c constraints.txt apache-airflow[pandas]
That will ignore what ever we specify in setup.py and use 2.1.3. https://pip.pypa.io/en/latest/user_guide/#constraints-files (sorry for the brief message) > On 19 Oct 2018, at 17:02, Maxime Beauchemin <maximebeauche...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> releases in pip should have stable (pinned deps) > I think that's an issue. When setup.py (the only reqs that setuptools/pip > knows about) is restrictive, there's no way to change that in your > environment, install will just fail if you deviate (are there any > hacks/solutions around that that I don't know about???). For example if you > want a specific version of pandas in your env, and Airflow's setup.py has > another version of pandas pinned, you're out of luck. I think the only way > is to fork and make you own build at that point as you cannot alter > setup.py once it's installed. On the other hand, when a version range is > specified in setup.py, you're free to pin using your own reqs.txt within > the specified version range. > > I think pinning in setup.py is just not viable. setup.py should have > version ranges based semantic versioning expectations. (lib>=1.1.2, > <2.0.0). Personally I think we should always have 2 bounds based on either > 1-semantic versioning major release, or 2- a lower version than prescribed > by semver that we know breaks backwards compatibility features we require. > > I think we have consensus around something like pip-tools to generate a > "deterministic" `requirements.txt`. A caveat is we may need 2: > requirements.txt and requirements3.txt for Python 3 as some package > versions can be flagged as only py2 or only py3. > > Max > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 1:47 AM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > >> I think i might have a proposal that could be acceptable by everyone in the >> discussion (hopefully :) ). Let me summarise what I am leaning towards >> now: >> >> I think we can have a solution where it will be relatively easy to keep >> both "open" and "fixed" requirements (open in setup.py, fixed in >> requirements.txt). Possibly we can use pip-tools or poetry (including using >> of the poetry-setup <https://github.com/orsinium/poetry-setup> which seem >> to be able to generate setup.py/constraints.txt/requirements.txt from >> poetry setup). Poetry is still "new" so it might not work, then we can try >> to get similar approach with pip-tools or our own custom solution. Here are >> the basic assumptions: >> >> - we can leave master with "open" requirements which makes it >> potentially unstable with potential conflicting dependencies. We will >> also >> document how to generate stable set of requirements (hopefully >> automatically) and a way how to install from master using those. *This >> addresses needs of people using master for active development with >> latest >> libraries.* >> - releases in pip should have stable (pinned deps). Upgrading pinned >> releases to latest "working" stable set should be part of the release >> process (possibly automated with poetry). We can try it out and decide >> if >> we want to pin only direct dependencies or also the transitive ones (I >> think including transitive dependencies is a bit more stable). *This way >> we keep long-term "install-ability" of releases and make job of release >> maintainer easier*. >> - CI builds will use the stable dependencies from requirements.txt. >> *This >> way we keep CI from dependency-triggered failures.* >> - we add documentation on how to use pip --constraints mechanism by >> anyone who would like to use airflow from PIP rather than sources, but >> would like also to use other (up- or down- graded) versions of specific >> dependencies. *This way we let active developers to work with airflow >> and more recent/or older releases.* >> >> If we can have general consensus that we should try it, I might try to find >> some time next week to do some "real work". Rather than implement it and >> make a pull request immediately, I think of a Proof Of Concept branch >> showing how it would work (with some artificial going back to older >> versions of requirements). I thought about pre-flaskappbuilder upgrade in >> one commit and update to post-flaskappbuilder upgrade in second, explaining >> the steps I've done to get to it. That would be much better for the >> community to discuss if that's the right approach. >> >> Does it sound good ? >> >> J. >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:21 AM Daniel (Daniel Lamblin) [BDP - Seoul] < >> lamb...@coupang.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/17/18, 12:24 AM, "William Pursell" <willi...@wepay.com.INVALID> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm jumping in a bit late here, and perhaps have missed some of the >>> discussion, but I haven't seen any mention of the fact that pinning >>> versions in setup.py isn't going to solve the problem. Perhaps it's >>> my lack of experience with pip, but currently pip doesn't provide any >>> guarantee that the version of a dependency specified in setup.py will >>> be the version that winds up being installed. Is this a known issue >>> that is being intentionally ignored because it's hard (and out of >>> scope) to solve? I agree that versions should be pinned in setup.py >>> for stable releases, but I think we need to be aware that this won't >>> solve the problem. >>> >>> So the problem is going to be stubborn for the rare user not installing >>> into a clean venv, vm, or docker image, or who is not relying on pypi to >>> host the dependencies unmodified. >>> https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/user_guide/#pinned-version-numbers >>> That doesn't mean it doesn't fix it for the vast majority of users who >> are >>> trying to install a particular supported stable release. Given that >> 1.10.0 >>> is the absolute very latest release, it should be supported. >>> >>> Shouldn’t there be an expectation that installing on a clean system from >> a >>> supported stable branch will create a stable installation that can run >> the >>> release? >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> *Jarek Potiuk, Principal Software Engineer* >> Mobile: +48 660 796 129 >>
