On Tue, 2018-05-15 at 07:24 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Stephen Finucane's message of 2018-05-15 11:44:11 +0100:
> > I imagine most people have been seeing warnings like the one below
> > raised by various openstack packages recently:
> > 
> >   .tox/py27/lib/python2.7/site-packages/psycopg2/__init__.py:144: 
> > UserWarning: The psycopg2
> >   wheel package will be renamed from release 2.8; in order to keep 
> > installing from binary
> >   please use "pip install psycopg2-binary" instead. For details see:
> >   <http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/install.html#binary-install-from-pypi>.
> > 
> > Based on this warning, I had done what seemed to be the obvious thing
> > to do and proposed adding psycopg2-binary to the list of global
> > requirements [1]. This would allow us to replace all references to
> > psycopg2 with psycopg2-wheel in individual projects. However, upon
> > further investigation it seems this is not really an option since the
> > two packages exist in the same namespace and will clobber each other.
> > I've now abandoned this patch.
> > 
> > Does anyone with stronger Python packaging-fu than I have a better
> > solution for the psycopg2 folks? There's a detailed description of why
> > this was necessary on GitHub [2] along with some potential resolutions,
> > none of which seem to be acceptable. If nothing better is possible, it
> > seems we'll simply have to live with (or silence) these warnings in
> > psycopg2 2.7.x and start installing libpg again once 2.8 is released.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen
> > 
> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/561924/
> > [2] https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg2/issues/674
> > 
> Bundling an SSL library seems like a particularly bad situation, but if
> its ABI isn't stable it may be all they can do.
> Perhaps some of the folks in the community who actually use Postgresql
> can get involved with helping the upstream maintainers of psycopg and
> libpg sort things out.

Yes, this would be my hope.

> In the mean time, is there any reason we can't just continue to
> install psycopg2 from source in our gate jobs after 2.8? If the
> wheel packages for psycopg2 2.7.x are bad perhaps we can come up
> with a way to pass --no-binary when installing it, but it's not
> clear if we need to. Does the bug affect us?

The only reason we might have issues is the libpq dependency. This was
required in 2.6 and will be required once again in 2.8. If this hasn't
been dropped from the list of requirements then we won't see any
breakages. If we do, we know where the issue lies.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to