On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, at 18:29, Michael Still wrote: > Hi, > <snip>
> This implies to me that perhaps Routes version 2.3.1 is a binary-only > release and that stable/newton is therefore broken for people who don't > like binary packages (in my case because they're building an install > image > for an architecture which doesn't match their host architecture). > Yes, I think you're correct - there doesn't seem to be a source tarball for 2.3.1: https://pypi.python.org/simple/routes/ Pip does find version 2.3: $ pip install --no-binary :all: Routes==2.3 Collecting Routes==2.3 Downloading Routes-2.3.tar.gz (181kB) 100% XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 184kB 3.1MB/s Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): six in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages (from Routes==2.3) Collecting repoze.lru>=0.3 (from Routes==2.3) Downloading repoze.lru-0.6.tar.gz Installing collected packages: repoze.lru, Routes Running setup.py install for repoze.lru ... done Running setup.py install for Routes ... done Successfully installed Routes-2.3 repoze.lru-0.6 Also, AFAICT 2.3.1 was just a single patch over 2.3 for compatibility, so if you don't need that then you could just stick with 2.3. -c __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev