Is Routes==2.3.1 a binary only package or something?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is Routes==2.3.1 a binary only package or something?

Michael Still
Hi,

I'm trying to explain this behaviour in stable/newton, which specifies Routes==2.3.1 in upper-constraints:

$ pip install --no-binary :all: Routes==2.3.1
...
  Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement Routes==2.3.1 (from versions: 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.7, 1.7.1, 1.7.2, 1.7.3, 1.8, 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 1.10, 1.10.1, 1.10.2, 1.10.3, 1.11, 1.12, 1.12.1, 1.12.3, 1.13, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.1)
Cleaning up...
No matching distribution found for Routes==2.3.1

There is definitely a 2.3.1 on pip:

$ pip install Routes==2.3.1
...
Successfully installed Routes-2.3.1 repoze.lru-0.6 six-1.10.0

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).

Am I confused? I'd love to be enlightened.

Michael

--
Rackspace Australia

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is Routes==2.3.1 a binary only package or something?

Chris Smart
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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is Routes==2.3.1 a binary only package or something?

Sean Dague-2
In reply to this post by Michael Still
On 06/12/2017 04:29 AM, Michael Still wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to explain this behaviour in stable/newton, which specifies
> Routes==2.3.1 in upper-constraints:
>
> $ pip install --no-binary :all: Routes==2.3.1
> ...
>   Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement Routes==2.3.1
> (from versions: 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.7, 1.7.1,
> 1.7.2, 1.7.3, 1.8, 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 1.10, 1.10.1, 1.10.2, 1.10.3,
> 1.11, 1.12, 1.12.1, 1.12.3, 1.13, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.1)
> Cleaning up...
> No matching distribution found for Routes==2.3.1
>
> There is definitely a 2.3.1 on pip:
>
> $ pip install Routes==2.3.1
> ...
> Successfully installed Routes-2.3.1 repoze.lru-0.6 six-1.10.0
>
> 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).
>
> Am I confused? I'd love to be enlightened.

Routes 2.3.1 appears to be any arch wheel. Is there a specific reason
that's not going to work for you? (e.g. Routes-2.3.1-py2.py3-none-any.whl)

        -Sean

--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is Routes==2.3.1 a binary only package or something?

Michael Still
The experimental buildroot based ironic python agent bans all binaries, I am not 100% sure why. Chris is the guy there.

I'm using that ipa as neither the coreos or tinyipa versions support the broadcom nic in this here ibm x3550.

Michael

On 12 Jun 2017 8:56 PM, "Sean Dague" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 06/12/2017 04:29 AM, Michael Still wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to explain this behaviour in stable/newton, which specifies
> Routes==2.3.1 in upper-constraints:
>
> $ pip install --no-binary :all: Routes==2.3.1
> ...
>   Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement Routes==2.3.1
> (from versions: 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.7, 1.7.1,
> 1.7.2, 1.7.3, 1.8, 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 1.10, 1.10.1, 1.10.2, 1.10.3,
> 1.11, 1.12, 1.12.1, 1.12.3, 1.13, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.1)
> Cleaning up...
> No matching distribution found for Routes==2.3.1
>
> There is definitely a 2.3.1 on pip:
>
> $ pip install Routes==2.3.1
> ...
> Successfully installed Routes-2.3.1 repoze.lru-0.6 six-1.10.0
>
> 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).
>
> Am I confused? I'd love to be enlightened.

Routes 2.3.1 appears to be any arch wheel. Is there a specific reason
that's not going to work for you? (e.g. Routes-2.3.1-py2.py3-none-any.whl)

        -Sean

--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is Routes==2.3.1 a binary only package or something?

Chris Smart
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, at 21:36, Michael Still wrote:
> The experimental buildroot based ironic python agent bans all binaries, I
> am not 100% sure why. Chris is the guy there.
>

Buildroot ironic python agent forces a build of all the
ironic-python-agent dependencies (as per requirements and constraints)
with no-binary :all:,  then builds ironic-python-agent wheel from the
git clone, then it can just install them all from local compiled wheels
into the target.[1]

IIRC this was to make sure that the wheels matched the target. It could
be all done wrong though.

[1]
https://github.com/csmart/ipa-buildroot/blob/master/buildroot-ipa/board/openstack/ipa/post-build.sh#L113

-c

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is Routes==2.3.1 a binary only package or something?

Michael Still
Certainly removing the "--no-binary :all:" results in a build that builds. I'll test and see if it works todayish.

Michael

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Chris Smart <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, at 21:36, Michael Still wrote:
> The experimental buildroot based ironic python agent bans all binaries, I
> am not 100% sure why. Chris is the guy there.
>

Buildroot ironic python agent forces a build of all the
ironic-python-agent dependencies (as per requirements and constraints)
with no-binary :all:,  then builds ironic-python-agent wheel from the
git clone, then it can just install them all from local compiled wheels
into the target.[1]

IIRC this was to make sure that the wheels matched the target. It could
be all done wrong though.

[1]
https://github.com/csmart/ipa-buildroot/blob/master/buildroot-ipa/board/openstack/ipa/post-build.sh#L113

-c



--
Rackspace Australia

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev