setuptools_scm build requirement

[Sandro]

Hi,

I've recently submitted the python-PyMunin3 package, which has now been 
approved and is available in f37 and rawhide. When porting PyMunin to 
Python3, I also cleaned up the install process moving everything into 
pyproject.toml. Little did I know back then, that this would limit the 
availability of the package in Fedora.

As f36 is currently on setuptools 59.6.0, the package can't be build 
there, since a pyproject.toml with the project table in it, requires 
setuptools >=61 as Miro pointed out to me[1].

I've since received a request to make the package available for el9. I 
myself already wanted it in f36, so I set out to work on lowering the 
setuptools requirement[2] by moving the project table back into 
setup.cfg just to hit another roadblock: setuptools_scm (see ticket).

That package is currently not available for el9 and the version in f35 
is too old. With f35 going end of life soon, that's not a big deal, but 
el9 is what was requested in the ticket[2].

Yet, thinking about the whole thing, all setuptools_scm does is 
calculate the version of the release from information in the SCM. In the 
RPM build environments that information is taken from the spec file. I 
don't know much about the internal workings of rpmbuild, but to me any 
BR on python-setuptools-scm (or the toml extra) seems redundant.

So, can it be dropped or in some other way omitted as a build 
requirement? I think that would make more Python packages available to a 
broader audience. Although, I haven't done any research on that.

[1] https://github.com/penguinpee/PyMunin3/pull/3
[2] https://github.com/penguinpee/PyMunin3/issues/4

Happy Hacktober everyone,

-- Sandro

[Lumír Balhar]

Hi Sandro.

You are right that without information from git repository (git tags), 
we cannot really use the full potential of setuptools_scm during the RPM 
build process. AFAIK the most popular way how to bypass the 
setuptools_scm mechanism is to use SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION env 
variable as described in 
https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm/#environment-variables . But that 
still requires the package to be installed.

I think the only way to omit setuptools_scm from the build process is to 
create a patch or use sed/grep to remove it from dependencies and 
hardcode the version but it's not ideal for future maintenance.

Have a nice day.

Lumír

On 10/2/22 12:10, Sandro wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  I've recently submitted the python-PyMunin3 package, which has now 
>  been approved and is available in f37 and rawhide. When porting 
>  PyMunin to Python3, I also cleaned up the install process moving 
>  everything into pyproject.toml. Little did I know back then, that this 
>  would limit the availability of the package in Fedora.
>
>  As f36 is currently on setuptools 59.6.0, the package can't be build 
>  there, since a pyproject.toml with the project table in it, requires 
>  setuptools >=61 as Miro pointed out to me[1].
>
>  I've since received a request to make the package available for el9. I 
>  myself already wanted it in f36, so I set out to work on lowering the 
>  setuptools requirement[2] by moving the project table back into 
>  setup.cfg just to hit another roadblock: setuptools_scm (see ticket).
>
>  That package is currently not available for el9 and the version in f35 
>  is too old. With f35 going end of life soon, that's not a big deal, 
>  but el9 is what was requested in the ticket[2].
>
>  Yet, thinking about the whole thing, all setuptools_scm does is 
>  calculate the version of the release from information in the SCM. In 
>  the RPM build environments that information is taken from the spec 
>  file. I don't know much about the internal workings of rpmbuild, but 
>  to me any BR on python-setuptools-scm (or the toml extra) seems 
>  redundant.
>
>  So, can it be dropped or in some other way omitted as a build 
>  requirement? I think that would make more Python packages available to 
>  a broader audience. Although, I haven't done any research on that.
>
>  [1] https://github.com/penguinpee/PyMunin3/pull/3
>  [2] https://github.com/penguinpee/PyMunin3/issues/4
>
>  Happy Hacktober everyone,
>
>  -- Sandro
>  _______________________________________________
>  python-devel mailing list -- python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to 
>  python-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: 
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives: 
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam, report it: 
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 10. 22 12:10, Sandro wrote:
>  [setuptools_scm] is currently not available for el9... 
But it is. It' part of the RHEL 9 CRB repository. However, also version 6.0.1. 
Why do you require >= 6.2 exactly?

>  Yet, thinking about the whole thing, all setuptools_scm does is
> calculate the 
>  version of the release from information in the SCM. In the RPM build 
>  environments that information is taken from the spec file. I don't know much 
>  about the internal workings of rpmbuild, but to me any BR on 
>  python-setuptools-scm (or the toml extra) seems redundant. 
It is indeed redundant, but sometimes a bit hard to patch out.

-- 
Miro Hrončok
-- 
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Sandro]

On 03-10-2022 12:14, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  On 02. 10. 22 12:10, Sandro wrote:
> > [setuptools_scm] is currently not available for el9...
>  
>  But it is. It' part of the RHEL 9 CRB repository. However, also version 6.0.1.
>  Why do you require >= 6.2 exactly? 
I was following the instructions in the project's README:

https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm#pyprojecttoml-usage

Regarding availability for el9, I didn't know (where to look). I looked 
on src.fp.o:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-setuptools_scm

There's an ancient version for el7, but nothing for el8 or el9.

> > Yet, thinking about the whole thing, all setuptools_scm does is
> calculate the
> > version of the release from information in the SCM. In the RPM build
> > environments that information is taken from the spec file. I don't know much
> > about the internal workings of rpmbuild, but to me any BR on
> > python-setuptools-scm (or the toml extra) seems redundant.
>  
>  It is indeed redundant, but sometimes a bit hard to patch out. 
One for the wish list then. Why chase down redundant build dependencies?

-- Sandro

[Miro Hrončok]

On 03. 10. 22 12:55, Sandro wrote:
>  
>  Regarding availability for el9, I didn't know (where to look). I looked on 
>  src.fp.o:
>  
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-setuptools_scm
>  
>  There's an ancient version for el7, but nothing for el8 or el9. 
That will only help with EPEL packages. To see also RHEL packages, I recommend 
installing CentOS 9 Stream repo file for repoquery (attached) to 
/etc/yum.repos.d/c9s.repo.

Then you can query like this:

$ repoquery --repo=c9s-{baseos,appstream,crb} python3-setuptools_scm --latest=1
...
python3-setuptools_scm-0:6.0.1-1.el9.noarch


Or components like this:

$ repoquery --repo=c9s-{baseos,appstream,crb}-source python-setuptools_scm \
   --latest=1
...
python-setuptools_scm-0:6.0.1-1.el9.src

-- 
Miro Hrončok
-- 
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Sandro]

On 03-10-2022 13:29, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  On 03. 10. 22 12:55, Sandro wrote:
> >
> > Regarding availability for el9, I didn't know (where to look). I looked on
> > src.fp.o:
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-setuptools_scm
> >
> > There's an ancient version for el7, but nothing for el8 or el9.
>  
>  That will only help with EPEL packages. To see also RHEL packages, I recommend
>  installing CentOS 9 Stream repo file for repoquery (attached) to
>  /etc/yum.repos.d/c9s.repo. 
Thank you, Miro. That really helps. It will sure come in handy in future 
build attempts.

-- Sandro

[Sandro]

On 03-10-2022 12:55, Sandro wrote:
>  On 03-10-2022 12:14, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 02. 10. 22 12:10, Sandro wrote:
> >> [setuptools_scm] is currently not available for el9...
> >
> > But it is. It' part of the RHEL 9 CRB repository. However, also version 6.0.1.
> > Why do you require >= 6.2 exactly?
>  
>  I was following the instructions in the project's README:
>  
>  https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm#pyprojecttoml-usage 
It's all lies and snake oil. It builds perfectly fine using version from 
git tag with "setuptools_scm[toml]>=6.0.0".

churchyard++ (I wish that would work on mailing lists).

-- Sandro

[Miro Hrončok]

On 03. 10. 22 13:30, Sandro wrote:
> > I was following the instructions in the project's README:
> >
> > https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm#pyprojecttoml-usage
>  
>  It's all lies and snake oil. 
Upstream lists the requirement of the recent enough version in their 
documentation, because the users are reading the current version of the 
documentation and if an older version was used, not all information from the 
current documentation would be accurate.

If you look e.g. at 
https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm/tree/v6.0.1#pyprojecttoml-usage the 
requirement was lower.

It was recently bumped in 
https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm/commit/15049053b8 when [toml] was no 
longer needed -- I suggest adding [toml] back if you lower the required version.

It works without [toml] in the EPEL 9 RPM package only by coincidence: because 
the pyproject RPM macros depend on python3-toml on EPEL 9.

-- 
Miro Hrončok
-- 
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Sandro]

On 03-10-2022 19:41, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  On 03. 10. 22 13:30, Sandro wrote:
> >> I was following the instructions in the project's README:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm#pyprojecttoml-usage
> >
> > It's all lies and snake oil.
>  
>  Upstream lists the requirement of the recent enough version in their
>  documentation, because the users are reading the current version of the
>  documentation and if an older version was used, not all information from the
>  current documentation would be accurate. 
I understand. There was a bit of frustration in my remark. What I think 
would really help is some sort of feature matrix. If you use feature 
foo, minimum version required is x.y.z

I recently stumbled on the same issue trying to determine minimum 
required version of setuptools. Especially for the RPM build systems you 
want to set it as low as possible, satisfying as many build environments 
as possible.

>  If you look e.g. at
>  https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm/tree/v6.0.1#pyprojecttoml-usage the
>  requirement was lower.
>  
>  It was recently bumped in
>  https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm/commit/15049053b8 when [toml] was no
>  longer needed -- I suggest adding [toml] back if you lower the required version.
>  
>  It works without [toml] in the EPEL 9 RPM package only by coincidence: because
>  the pyproject RPM macros depend on python3-toml on EPEL 9. 
I'm still using setuptools_scm[toml] as a build requirement:

https://github.com/penguinpee/PyMunin3/commit/8f22eec3409711d4b7a5a5a0787...

In you second link it looks like they removed it. But I think it's the 
other way around:

https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm/compare/v6.2.0...v7.0.5#diff-7b3ed...

My diff is base: v6.2.0 <- compare: v7.05.
Yours seems to be base: v7.0.5 <- compare: v6.2.0.

I might be wrong, but on the front page (main) the toml extra is listed 
as a requirement and that's what I have in my pyproject.toml.

But I see now why one needs two pairs of glasses doing Python. ;-D

-- Sandro

[Miro Hrončok]

On 03. 10. 22 22:50, Sandro wrote:
>  
>  I'm still using setuptools_scm[toml] as a build requirement:
>  
>  https://github.com/penguinpee/PyMunin3/commit/8f22eec3409711d4b7a5a5a0787... 
Good.

>  In you second link it looks like they removed it. But I think
> it's the other 
>  way around... 
They actually removed it and added it back later, so never mind me :)

-- 
Miro Hrončok
-- 
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok