Re: [RFC] RPM's Python dependency generator
On 3 December 2016 at 05:40, Toshio Kuratomiwrote: > On Dec 1, 2016 6:58 AM, "Petr Viktorin" wrote: >> Problems with upstreams getting setup.py wrong should be treated as >> upstream bugs and treated accordingly: reported as pull requests, or, as the >> last resort, by a Fedora-specific patch to setup.py. > > Note that fedora will have to carry more patches to setup.py's (but > hopefully of limited durations and pretty trivial). Upstream versioned > requirements often don't match with distro packages because we backport to > work around bugs in compatible manners while upstream simply requires newer > versions that have the bugs fixed. > > Not a showstopper by any means; just something to be aware of. Depending on how deep people want to dive into that aspect, it may even make sense to start using the "Local version identifier" feature in PEP 440 to expose RPM release numbers to Python level tooling: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/#local-version-identifiers Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [RFC] RPM's Python dependency generator
Seems like a solid plan. Smaller details can be refined as well, but overall seems like a good direction. Unfortunately at this time there aren't free cycles for the python-maint team members, so I doubt we would be able to push this for F26 as a system wide change on behalf of our team at least. So if noone is up for chasing this for the current development cycle, I would suggest pushing it for F27. Regards, Charalampos Stratakis Associate Software Engineer Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat - Original Message - From: "Igor Gnatenko" <ignate...@redhat.com> To: "Fedora Python SIG" <python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 2:36:48 PM Subject: Re: [RFC] RPM's Python dependency generator On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Tomas Orsava <tors...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/30/2016 02:44 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Tomas Orsava <tors...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> I don't think the depgen should be enabled by default, at least not in >>> the >>> foreseeable future. IIRC it's not that well implemented—e.g. I believe it >>> doesn't read requirements.txt for example (but I might be wrong). >>> There will be a lot of cases where the generated requirements are >>> incomplete, or contain unnecessary entries, etc. I think it should remain >>> an >>> opt-in. >>> >> According to various Python people, we're not actually supposed to >> read requirements.txt. That file is explicitly designed for people to >> individualized deployments. The proper place to get this information >> is from the egg-info/dist-info data, which is what we read. The fact >> that some people abuse requirements.txt and have it read in by their >> setup.py is beside the point. Whatever the setup.py (thus >> pip/easy_install/etc.) says it needs, the generator will dutifully >> report. > > > The fact remains in too many cases it will need to be manually adjusted, it > won't be foolproof. > Therefore I argue it would be better for it to be an opt-in so that new > packagers don't immediately have to jump in into debugging a depgen they > have no clue how really works. We'll see how it will go. we have depgen for pkgconfig, libraries, etc. for many years and people don't go and debug it immediately, but for many of packages it will help a lot. Anyhow, we'll see after couple of releases. Neal suggested to have: %__python_requires %{_rpmconfigdir}/%{?pythondistdeps_enable:pythondistdeps.py}%{!?pythondistdeps_enable:pythondeps.sh} --requires in python.attr inside RPM. I tested it and it just works once I specify `%global pythondistdeps_enable 1` in spec. Can you help me to get this included? With RPM part it's clear how to get this, but updating guidelines and other stuff... > > ___ > python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- -Igor Gnatenko ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [RFC] RPM's Python dependency generator
On 12/01/2016 02:42 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Igor Gnatenkowrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Tomas Orsava wrote: On 11/30/2016 02:44 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Tomas Orsava wrote: I don't think the depgen should be enabled by default, at least not in the foreseeable future. IIRC it's not that well implemented—e.g. I believe it doesn't read requirements.txt for example (but I might be wrong). There will be a lot of cases where the generated requirements are incomplete, or contain unnecessary entries, etc. I think it should remain an opt-in. According to various Python people, we're not actually supposed to read requirements.txt. That file is explicitly designed for people to individualized deployments. The proper place to get this information is from the egg-info/dist-info data, which is what we read. The fact that some people abuse requirements.txt and have it read in by their setup.py is beside the point. Whatever the setup.py (thus pip/easy_install/etc.) says it needs, the generator will dutifully report. The fact remains in too many cases it will need to be manually adjusted, it won't be foolproof. Therefore I argue it would be better for it to be an opt-in so that new packagers don't immediately have to jump in into debugging a depgen they have no clue how really works. We'll see how it will go. we have depgen for pkgconfig, libraries, etc. for many years and people don't go and debug it immediately, but for many of packages it will help a lot. Anyhow, we'll see after couple of releases. Neal suggested to have: %__python_requires %{_rpmconfigdir}/%{?pythondistdeps_enable:pythondistdeps.py}%{!?pythondistdeps_enable:pythondeps.sh} --requires in python.attr inside RPM. I tested it and it just works once I specify `%global pythondistdeps_enable 1` in spec. Can you help me to get this included? With RPM part it's clear how to get this, but updating guidelines and other stuff... This will also drastically simplify the work of tools like pyp2rpm, since instead of having to do crazy processing of module names, it can just use the appropriate pypi provides/requires. If the macro template enables the requires generator, it won't even need to specify requires at all, as they'll be generated from the wheel data anyway. +1, ideally that'll leave us with only one automatic dependency generator. Problems with upstreams getting setup.py wrong should be treated as upstream bugs and treated accordingly: reported as pull requests, or, as the last resort, by a Fedora-specific patch to setup.py. CCing Michal from the pyp2rpm project, so that everyone knows he's aware of the discussion here. -- Petr Viktorin ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [RFC] RPM's Python dependency generator
On 12/01/2016 02:36 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: We'll see how it will go. we have depgen for pkgconfig, libraries, etc. for many years and people don't go and debug it immediately, but for many of packages it will help a lot. Anyhow, we'll see after couple of releases. Yeah, absolutely. When it's battle-tested and solid, it will make packaging that much easier. Neal suggested to have: %__python_requires %{_rpmconfigdir}/%{?pythondistdeps_enable:pythondistdeps.py}%{!?pythondistdeps_enable:pythondeps.sh} --requires in python.attr inside RPM. Oh that's clever, I was wondering how things like that are done! I tested it and it just works once I specify `%global pythondistdeps_enable 1` in spec. Can you help me to get this included? With RPM part it's clear how to get this, but updating guidelines and other stuff... AFAIK the best way to get the guidelines updated is to create an accompanying Fedora Change. [0] I sadly don't have free cycles to take that on, as I'm currently involved in 2 upcoming Fedora Changes, nevertheless I will gladly provide any help and guidance you might need! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [RFC] RPM's Python dependency generator
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Igor Gnatenkowrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Tomas Orsava wrote: >> On 11/30/2016 02:44 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Tomas Orsava wrote: I don't think the depgen should be enabled by default, at least not in the foreseeable future. IIRC it's not that well implemented—e.g. I believe it doesn't read requirements.txt for example (but I might be wrong). There will be a lot of cases where the generated requirements are incomplete, or contain unnecessary entries, etc. I think it should remain an opt-in. >>> According to various Python people, we're not actually supposed to >>> read requirements.txt. That file is explicitly designed for people to >>> individualized deployments. The proper place to get this information >>> is from the egg-info/dist-info data, which is what we read. The fact >>> that some people abuse requirements.txt and have it read in by their >>> setup.py is beside the point. Whatever the setup.py (thus >>> pip/easy_install/etc.) says it needs, the generator will dutifully >>> report. >> >> >> The fact remains in too many cases it will need to be manually adjusted, it >> won't be foolproof. >> Therefore I argue it would be better for it to be an opt-in so that new >> packagers don't immediately have to jump in into debugging a depgen they >> have no clue how really works. > We'll see how it will go. we have depgen for pkgconfig, libraries, > etc. for many years and people don't go and debug it immediately, but > for many of packages it will help a lot. Anyhow, we'll see after > couple of releases. > > Neal suggested to have: > %__python_requires > %{_rpmconfigdir}/%{?pythondistdeps_enable:pythondistdeps.py}%{!?pythondistdeps_enable:pythondeps.sh} > --requires > in python.attr inside RPM. > > I tested it and it just works once I specify `%global > pythondistdeps_enable 1` in spec. Can you help me to get this > included? With RPM part it's clear how to get this, but updating > guidelines and other stuff... This will also drastically simplify the work of tools like pyp2rpm, since instead of having to do crazy processing of module names, it can just use the appropriate pypi provides/requires. If the macro template enables the requires generator, it won't even need to specify requires at all, as they'll be generated from the wheel data anyway. -- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [RFC] RPM's Python dependency generator
On 11/30/2016 02:44 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Tomas Orsavawrote: I don't think the depgen should be enabled by default, at least not in the foreseeable future. IIRC it's not that well implemented—e.g. I believe it doesn't read requirements.txt for example (but I might be wrong). There will be a lot of cases where the generated requirements are incomplete, or contain unnecessary entries, etc. I think it should remain an opt-in. According to various Python people, we're not actually supposed to read requirements.txt. That file is explicitly designed for people to individualized deployments. The proper place to get this information is from the egg-info/dist-info data, which is what we read. The fact that some people abuse requirements.txt and have it read in by their setup.py is beside the point. Whatever the setup.py (thus pip/easy_install/etc.) says it needs, the generator will dutifully report. The fact remains in too many cases it will need to be manually adjusted, it won't be foolproof. Therefore I argue it would be better for it to be an opt-in so that new packagers don't immediately have to jump in into debugging a depgen they have no clue how really works. ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [RFC] RPM's Python dependency generator
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Tomas Orsavawrote: > > I don't think the depgen should be enabled by default, at least not in the > foreseeable future. IIRC it's not that well implemented—e.g. I believe it > doesn't read requirements.txt for example (but I might be wrong). > There will be a lot of cases where the generated requirements are > incomplete, or contain unnecessary entries, etc. I think it should remain an > opt-in. > According to various Python people, we're not actually supposed to read requirements.txt. That file is explicitly designed for people to individualized deployments. The proper place to get this information is from the egg-info/dist-info data, which is what we read. The fact that some people abuse requirements.txt and have it read in by their setup.py is beside the point. Whatever the setup.py (thus pip/easy_install/etc.) says it needs, the generator will dutifully report. -- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[RFC] RPM's Python dependency generator
Hi, in short, it reads egg metadata and can generate Provides (which we already do now), Requires (which I want to talk about) and Recommends (which I don't care atm). Let's take simple package -- aiohttp. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381750 As you can see, since some version multidict requirement was bumped to >= 2.0 and async_timeout requirement was added. Currently we specify all requirements during initial package and usually without versions which is breaking after some time. So, let's try it (I will skip unrelated parts). Before: python(abi) = 3.5 python3-chardet python3-multidict After: python(abi) = 3.5 python3.5dist(async-timeout) python3.5dist(chardet) python3.5dist(multidict) >= 2.0 Without more complicated packages (MNE, nipy, nilearn, moss) it's getting much more harder since I have there 10+ deps. We can't really track all changes in upstream code, so if we will enable dependency generator, it will do this work for us. Note that we can't just enable it in RPM, because it will break a lot of packages due to: * missing requires in egg metadata * extra requires in egg metadata (e.g. windows-modules) I would propose plan: 1. Create macro which will enable/disable depgen (e.g %python_enable_depgen) 2. Start enabling depgen and porting things (somehow reuse portingdb.xyz probably?) and submitting patches upstream 3. In 1-2 releases I hope we can use it for major amount of packages 4. Enable depgen by default in RPM, add disabling depgen for remaining packages Neal, you can share how Mageia did that as well and feel free to comment this ;) Thoughts? -- -Igor Gnatenko ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org