On 11/21/25 5:48 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 09:56:59AM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
On 11/21/25 8:39 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 08:36:14AM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
Add setuptools to test/py/requirements.txt. Otherwise, attempting to run
tests can fail as follows:
$ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build
+make O=u-boot/build-sandbox -s sandbox_defconfig
+make O=u-boot/build-sandbox -s -j32
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "u-boot/build-sandbox/../scripts/dtc/pylibfdt/setup.py", line 23, in
<module>
from setuptools import setup, Extension
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'setuptools'
Signed-off-by: David Lechner <[email protected]>
---
test/py/requirements.txt | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
NAK. It's the build of U-Boot that requires setuptools (specifically
scripts/dtc/pylibfdt), not pytest. It was dropped as part of cleaning up
the test/py/requirements.txt file before. A top-level project
requirements.txt file would help avoid these problems, but we don't yet
have agreement on that.
OK, I think I see how it works now. It looks like most tools have
a requirements.txt already, but dtc is missing it. Would it make
sense to add a scripts/dtc/pylibfdt/requirements.txt containing
setuptools?
Then `find . -name *requirements*.txt` would make it easy to find
everything that might need to be installed for a given target.
Yes, I think that's a reasonable step. I think in the near'ish future we
might be able to instead switch to just installing pylibfdt.
I'll just say, I understand that adding those setuptools into
test/py/requirements.txt is not the right fix, but it does make me
grumpy every single time I use pytest with U-Boot. So I do fully support
this effort to improve this situation.
