Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Any other downstream developers having problems with pbr?
On 26 June 2015 at 23:01, Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com wrote: I wrote this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts? Hi Matt, thanks for raising this. We've had very mixed results trying to figure out what issues distribution packagers are having with pbr - we have a couple of mechanisms already for them: - you can tag - a tagged commit has the version of the tag - you can use PBR_VERSION (per http://docs.openstack.org/developer/pbr/packagers.html) The error you complain about in that review is saying that that config file specifies a version number that *cannot* be satisfied. Versions have to increase, they can't go backwards. There are several things that could combine to create this contradiction: for instance, say you have two commits, B the most recent commit and A the commit before it. There's also a tag 2014.1.4 that points at A. B cannot have a version lower than 2014.1.5: because if B had a version of 2014.1.4, the tag pointing at A would be false. If B had a version of 2014.1.4a1 or anything like that, B would have a lower version than A. But the config file in nova at the time this error was raised says 'The version of the next release WILL BE 2014.1.4'. Thus PBR has been given contradictory instructions, and throws its hands up in the air. We could perhaps instead just *ignore* setup.cfg's version line. That would mean that you'd get 2014.1.5, but this would be very surprising to folk that have been putting versions in setup.cfg, so we didn't do that. I don't know if that would solve the issue you were having. We could remove the version = line from setup.cfg's across the board, and Doug and Thierry are considering that. The pbr team (loosely oslo+infra) are very open to discussion about the right way to do things, for both upstream and packagers, and would welcome a bug report describing any confusing or problematic situation you might find yourself in in future. I know of two important bits of work at the moment; firstly I've promised to write up a spec about making pbr suitable for use in some of the Python packaging tools [virtualenv and pip specifically], which will involve being able to ship sdists that have no setup_requires. I believe this will be attractive to distribution packagers as well. Secondly, some folk are interested in supporting local version segments in the PEP-440 version string - I'm keen on that too, but it needs (IMNSHO) to align in with the Nova/Cinder etc 'vendor version' feature from their config files - we should consolidate that logic into pbr, as its really got nothing to do with any one API server per se. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Any other downstream developers having problems with pbr?
Matthew Booth wrote: I wrote this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts? +1 to doing the ideal and fixing PBR (if it needs fixing) :-) Matt __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Any other downstream developers having problems with pbr?
On 06/26/2015 07:24 AM, Clark Boylan wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 04:01 AM, Matthew Booth wrote: I wrote this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts? Use the PBR_VERSION env var [1], it exists so that downstreams can assert a specific version. The important bit from the docs is all version calculation logic will be completely skipped and the supplied version will be considered absolute. I agree with Clark - and it seems you abandoned the patch - so awesome. Additionally though - we discussed all the way back in Atlanta about adding a feature to pbr to generate a static setup.py at sdist time, so that pbr is a thing you only need if you're working from git ... which means it might be a fun thing to rework your script into a pbr patch - although obviously for a slightly different outcome. __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Any other downstream developers having problems with pbr?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/26/2015 01:01 PM, Matthew Booth wrote: I wrote this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts? Matt You either use an older pbr version, or cherry-pick/introduce a patch similar to: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/I6a35fa0dda798fad93b804d00a46af80f08d47 5c,n,z to make it work with newer pbr version. Apparently, in downstream, you don't want to switch your pbr version for unclear reason, so probably pinning pbr to specific version is the way to go. Ihar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVjTsnAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57JxAIAJ3Sz0stpUax4xrIaUXkPAZR mi2vMndHmhFccjkEQ/g/1BWo0XbGw7N2VMkfojhoqmw+ONabbOi+qj0dxaOtFLS3 aJaqFvJ0eseJyhUGSpbcm3WDoph8pTtPNsn/V9OaiNzHT7VBo3gpt/NJbuuT6x1v Yz5+G8h0KpPOUqmlad/4rgo92UvCbPoO0qYIJopaZO8ib8GA29wGfpckKyF+Z6hL cGCIaccpZtZ9Dey5mjJBPVOGjBOGbMiXQWynueIpkdpMugQu03hgUxWq4g693l87 VZlBfQUgSSITG49f8hB2QVmRiAxKk16NXXv4rpdBnxKkcfFFO0P36J5k61I0u1g= =fSon -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Any other downstream developers having problems with pbr?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 04:01 AM, Matthew Booth wrote: I wrote this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195983/1/tools/de-pbr.py,cm Ideally we'd fix PBR, but this seems to be expected behaviour. Thoughts? Use the PBR_VERSION env var [1], it exists so that downstreams can assert a specific version. The important bit from the docs is all version calculation logic will be completely skipped and the supplied version will be considered absolute. [1] https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-dev/pbr/tree/doc/source/packagers.rst#n10 Clark __ 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
