|
Re: State of python (legacy) setuptools usage
I have filed https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14638 to capture and track this necessary change.
Konrad, you don't seem to have a BZ account? so I couldn't CC you.
I have filed https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14638 to capture and track this necessary change.
Konrad, you don't seem to have a BZ account? so I couldn't CC you.
|
By
Tim Orling
·
#1368
·
|
|
Dropping usage of distutils YOCTO#14610
As most of you are now aware, Python 3.10 deprecated the use of distutils, with removal in 3.12 (~Octover 2023).
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14610
I have begun a branch to
As most of you are now aware, Python 3.10 deprecated the use of distutils, with removal in 3.12 (~Octover 2023).
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14610
I have begun a branch to
|
By
Tim Orling
·
#1367
·
|
|
Re: State of python (legacy) setuptools usage
I agree. The argument against is that having things outside python-core (CPython) allows for a more nimble, agile development process. But this feels like it assumes that there are infinite developers
I agree. The argument against is that having things outside python-core (CPython) allows for a more nimble, agile development process. But this feels like it assumes that there are infinite developers
|
By
Tim Orling
·
#1366
·
|
|
Re: State of python (legacy) setuptools usage
Thank you for the list, this helps immensely. Perhaps we should start a Wiki to capture these.
This good news is typing_extensions uses flit_core, so there will be a path soon. This gives me more
Thank you for the list, this helps immensely. Perhaps we should start a Wiki to capture these.
This good news is typing_extensions uses flit_core, so there will be a path soon. This gives me more
|
By
Tim Orling
·
#1365
·
|
|
Re: State of python (legacy) setuptools usage
As of now I think the most viable solution would be if setuptools and all that toml parsing stuff would be moved into python-core, but I have no idea if that is somehow on the python upstream's
As of now I think the most viable solution would be if setuptools and all that toml parsing stuff would be moved into python-core, but I have no idea if that is somehow on the python upstream's
|
By
Konrad Weihmann <kweihmann@...>
·
#1364
·
|
|
Re: State of python (legacy) setuptools usage
In the things that I maintain I so far came across
javaproperties -> using setup.cfg
jsonschema -> using setup.cfg
tomli -> same
typing_extensions -> using just pyproject.toml
for the first ones I
In the things that I maintain I so far came across
javaproperties -> using setup.cfg
jsonschema -> using setup.cfg
tomli -> same
typing_extensions -> using just pyproject.toml
for the first ones I
|
By
Konrad Weihmann <kweihmann@...>
·
#1363
·
|
|
Re: State of python (legacy) setuptools usage
Can you list some examples, so we can start a todo list? I have come across one or two, but it is difficult to search for them. It would really help me to have some test cases. (I have a similar issue
Can you list some examples, so we can start a todo list? I have come across one or two, but it is difficult to search for them. It would really help me to have some test cases. (I have a similar issue
|
By
Tim Orling
·
#1362
·
|
|
Re: State of python (legacy) setuptools usage
I believe the commit log in [2] clearly explains why it is done in such
a hacky way due to a circular dependency.
Since OpenEmbedded is not alone here and other source distros are having
similar
I believe the commit log in [2] clearly explains why it is done in such
a hacky way due to a circular dependency.
Since OpenEmbedded is not alone here and other source distros are having
similar
|
By
Denys Dmytriyenko
·
#1361
·
|
|
State of python (legacy) setuptools usage
Hi all,
recently more and more python module (preferably downloaded from pypi) do not contain a setup.py anymore.
I remember there were attempts to use https://github.com/pypa/build instead, but to
Hi all,
recently more and more python module (preferably downloaded from pypi) do not contain a setup.py anymore.
I remember there were attempts to use https://github.com/pypa/build instead, but to
|
By
Konrad Weihmann <kweihmann@...>
·
#1360
·
|
|
Re: Improve native/cross recipe reproducibility
That version had a bug, needed:
-if argv[1][0] == '--':
+if argv[1].startswith('--'):
I've attached an updated version of the patch.
Jacob
That version had a bug, needed:
-if argv[1][0] == '--':
+if argv[1].startswith('--'):
I've attached an updated version of the patch.
Jacob
|
By
Jacob Kroon
·
#1359
·
|
|
Re: Improve native/cross recipe reproducibility
Here is a slightly more intelligent version, based on top of your patch
that adjusts BUILD_RANLIB. It should hopefully handle the meson breakage.
Jacob
Here is a slightly more intelligent version, based on top of your patch
that adjusts BUILD_RANLIB. It should hopefully handle the meson breakage.
Jacob
|
By
Jacob Kroon
·
#1358
·
|
|
Re: Improve native/cross recipe reproducibility
this patch is fine, and perhaps should be submitted to gcc mailing list regardless.
wrappers seems least intrusive and perhaps wholesome at this point without many downsides. So I would suggest we
this patch is fine, and perhaps should be submitted to gcc mailing list regardless.
wrappers seems least intrusive and perhaps wholesome at this point without many downsides. So I would suggest we
|
By
Khem Raj
·
#1357
·
|
|
Re: Improve native/cross recipe reproducibility
wrote:
FWIW the above breaks meson which tries to run "ar D--version" after the above
change. The intercept script is going to have to be a little more "clever" :/
Cheers,
Richard
wrote:
FWIW the above breaks meson which tries to run "ar D--version" after the above
change. The intercept script is going to have to be a little more "clever" :/
Cheers,
Richard
|
By
Richard Purdie
·
#1356
·
|
|
Re: Improve native/cross recipe reproducibility
I think this would be something really useful to fix. For ranlib, we can
probably just patch BUILD_RANLIB to add the flag. For ar, we need to remove the
u option so it can only really be done with an
I think this would be something really useful to fix. For ranlib, we can
probably just patch BUILD_RANLIB to add the flag. For ar, we need to remove the
u option so it can only really be done with an
|
By
Richard Purdie
·
#1355
·
|
|
Re: Improve native/cross recipe reproducibility
I've attached an oe-core patch that adds the wrappers above to native
and cross builds.
Jacob
I've attached an oe-core patch that adds the wrappers above to native
and cross builds.
Jacob
|
By
Jacob Kroon
·
#1354
·
|
|
Re: Improve native/cross recipe reproducibility
We also clearly need to extend automated reproducibility testing to native recipes - I’ll look into that. It’s fine to have core items in repro exception list, we just need to know what they
We also clearly need to extend automated reproducibility testing to native recipes - I’ll look into that. It’s fine to have core items in repro exception list, we just need to know what they
|
By
Alexander Kanavin
·
#1353
·
|
|
Improve native/cross recipe reproducibility
Hi,
Some days ago there was a patch in OE-Core that updated the
Upstream-Status tags in a couple of the gcc patches. I figured this
wouldn't cause too much of rebuilding thanks to hashequiv, but it
Hi,
Some days ago there was a patch in OE-Core that updated the
Upstream-Status tags in a couple of the gcc patches. I figured this
wouldn't cause too much of rebuilding thanks to hashequiv, but it
|
By
Jacob Kroon
·
#1352
·
|
|
OpenEmbedded Developer Virtual Meeting (OEDVM) December 2021
There will be an OpenEmbedded Developer Virtual Meeting (OEDVM) held
on Friday, 03 December 2021. This will be the day after the Yocto
Project® Summit 2021.11 concludes. The scheduled time will
There will be an OpenEmbedded Developer Virtual Meeting (OEDVM) held
on Friday, 03 December 2021. This will be the day after the Yocto
Project® Summit 2021.11 concludes. The scheduled time will
|
By
Jon Mason
·
#1351
·
|
|
Re: Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
Er, yes. What was I thinking exactly? :)
Anyway, you all knew what I meant!
I think anything with two or more such operators should just error as that has
never been supported and shouldn't/couldn't
Er, yes. What was I thinking exactly? :)
Anyway, you all knew what I meant!
I think anything with two or more such operators should just error as that has
never been supported and shouldn't/couldn't
|
By
Richard Purdie
·
#1350
·
|
|
Re: Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
But this 2nd example is what might be difficult to spot and most likely needs the leading space as well, right?
Especially when there is some override like
VAR2:append:machine-foo:distro-foo =
But this 2nd example is what might be difficult to spot and most likely needs the leading space as well, right?
Especially when there is some override like
VAR2:append:machine-foo:distro-foo =
|
By
Martin Jansa
·
#1349
·
|