python-devel December 2021

python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

16 participants
15 discussions

PySide2 error building with Python 3.10/.11
by Richard Shaw 25 Dec '21

25 Dec '21

Upstream isn't really working on PySide for Qt 5 as all of their development is on PySide6 for Qt6 and therefore unlikely to get fixed. I worked through a couple of errors but got stuck at this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025599#c6 Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Richard

1 0

python-flit for EPEL9?
by Michel Alexandre Salim 23 Dec '21

23 Dec '21

I'm starting to try and grok pyproject.toml and its assorted PEPs in more details, and it looks like flit is one of the more straightforward way to build compliant wheels out there. Should we get it into EPEL9? I filed a tracking bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035376 looks like it's retired in CS9 so it should be fine for us to have. https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/python-flit/-/blob/main/dead.p… It currently does not build because of some missing dependencies - I listed them in the bug above - if we do want this in EPEL9 I'll file those bug requests and make them block this. Also, to note, the EPEL maintainer is currently set to orphan. While I'm in python-sig so I can branch and build just fine as is, Miro, as the owner could you add me to the ACL and/or set me as the EPEL assignee? We could probably add epel-packagers-sig as collaborator on epel* branches too. Best regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name

3 5

Re: Are the new guidelines mandatory for new packages?
by Miro Hrončok 23 Dec '21

23 Dec '21

On 23. 12. 21 21:34, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > On 12/23/21 18:41, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> On 23. 12. 21 18:25, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Are the new Python guidelines mandatory or optional? >> >> Optional. >> >> From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ >> >> """Older guidelines are still being kept up to date, and existing packages >> MAY use them instead of this document.""" >> > > I meant for brand new packages, when i review them, shall i ask people to > follow the new ones strictly? You might ask them nicely to consider it, but you should not demand that. They are optional for brand new packages as well. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

1 0

Are the new guidelines mandatory for new packages?
by Robert-André Mauchin 23 Dec '21

23 Dec '21

Hello, Are the new Python guidelines mandatory or optional? I mean the whole: %build %pyproject_wheel %install %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files Or can packagers still use py3_build and py3_install? Best regards, Robert-André

2 1

package request: PyWaffle
by Matthew Miller 20 Dec '21

20 Dec '21

Hi! I'm using this https://github.com/gyli/PyWaffle for some visualizations for Fedora Project stats. I'm kind of out of the loop on the state of the art of python packaging, and wondered if some kind Python SIG person would like to take it on for me.

4 12

pyproject-rpm-macros: adding support for Pipfile?
by Michel Alexandre Salim 20 Dec '21

20 Dec '21

Hi, Is there interest in supporting parsing Pipfile for build requirements? e.g. MonkeyType uses it to list its dependencies: https://github.com/instagram/MonkeyType For now I can just add requirements by hand, `%pyproject_buildrequires -r` does not error out but also does not generate anything. Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name

3 4

suggestions for upstream and font bundling?
by Matthew Miller 19 Dec '21

19 Dec '21

I'd like to suggest to the PyWaffle dev that if system Font Awesome is found, the package uses that (whether installed by RPM or pip or whatever). What's a good way to do that? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

1 0

(no subject)
by Matthew Miller 18 Dec '21

18 Dec '21

> My personal opinion is that packing Python libraries that are not required by > packaged applications/tools brings very little benefit to the project. I suggest > to use a Python virtual environment instead and install the libraries you need > with pip. In this case, it'd be really convenient, because I want to run a script that uses it in Fedora infrastructure, and this is the one not-currently-packaged dependency.

1 0

Re: Recent python-pytest-cov update in F34/F35 causes many FTBFS
by Miro Hrončok 18 Dec '21

18 Dec '21

On 17. 12. 21 21:41, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2021-12-16 at 21:53 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> On 16. 12. 21 20:09, Ben Beasley wrote: >>> It looks like python-pytest-cov was recently updated to 3.0.0 in F35[1] and >>> F34[2]. I noticed this because, between my own packages and those maintained >>> through @neuro-sig, I saw a wave of FTBFS notifications from Koschei. >>> >>> Unfortunately, because packages commonly pin a particular major version, and >>> because pytest-cov has been in 2.x for a long time, a huge number of packages >>> are likely to be affected. >> >> A good opportunity to patch/sed coverage out of those packages for good :) > > FWIW, I use a pattern in several projects I maintain where tests are > always run via coverage, although actually generating and analyzing > reports is only done in a tox environment that is run in CI workflows > (and not in the package build). See: > https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/fedfind/blob/main/f/tox.ini > for e.g. If you have a better way to do this, let me know... Something like this (untested). [tox] envlist = {py27,py36,py38,py39,py310,py311}{-coverage,},coverage-report ... [testenv] deps = -r{toxinidir}/install.requires -r{toxinidir}/tests.requires coverage: -r{toxinidir}/tests-coverage.requires commands = python -m pytest {posargs} [testenv:coverage] commands = coverage run -m pytest {posargs} [testenv:coverage-report] ... I would personally not mix coverage report and linting, but from downstream perspective, it doesn't matter becasue that is what we don't run either way. Also, if you don't like the repeated slightly different command, it can be factored out, but I considered that less readable. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

1 0

Recent python-pytest-cov update in F34/F35 causes many FTBFS
by Ben Beasley 16 Dec '21

16 Dec '21

It looks like python-pytest-cov was recently updated to 3.0.0 in F35[1] and F34[2]. I noticed this because, between my own packages and those maintained through @neuro-sig, I saw a wave of FTBFS notifications from Koschei. Unfortunately, because packages commonly pin a particular major version, and because pytest-cov has been in 2.x for a long time, a huge number of packages are likely to be affected. It would be nice if Koschei could build against updates-testing so that problems like this could be more easily detected before the updates have already reached stable. – Ben [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3b53235332 [2] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-379e60a35b

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

python-devel December 2021