Python3.6 Packages

[Miserlou]

This is annoying. Is everything going to have to be repackaged for 3.6?

We'll have to change the manifest format as welll, suggest we simply add another layer so that the runtime is before the package name.

[wagmiwiz]

I am happy to do the "pre-pend runtime" update for current python 2.7 packages as am updating that bit of code in Zappa anyways. For 3.6 I suggest to only recompile those that don't have a wheels version for the particular package version, perhaps via a separate PR per new package.

Just to be clear before proceeding, would the following work?

Package file name

Same directory name but instead of filename being something like pycrypto-2.6.1.tar.gz we now have python2.7-pycrypto-2.6.1.tar.gz

Manifest

Instead of:

'psycopg2': {
        'version': '2.6.1',
        'path': os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)),
                            'psycopg2', 'psycopg2-2.6.1.tar.gz')
    },

we have:

'psycopg2': {
        'version': '2.6.1',
        'path': os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)),
                            'psycopg2', 'python2.7-psycopg2-2.6.1.tar.gz')
    },
'python2.7-psycopg2': {
        'version': '2.6.1',
        'path': os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)),
                            'psycopg2', 'python2.7-psycopg2-2.6.1.tar.gz')
    },

I am suggesting to keep the old entry which defaults to python2.7 for backwards compatibility with anyone who is using this outside of Zappa, but to then mention in docs to prefer the new format.

@Miserlou whacha say?

[wagmiwiz]

Or perhaps even simpler:

'psycopg2': {
        'version': '2.6.1',
        'path': os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)),
                            'psycopg2', 'python2.7-psycopg2-2.6.1.tar.gz'),
        'python2.7-path': os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)),
                            'psycopg2', 'python2.7-psycopg2-2.6.1.tar.gz')
    },

[Miserlou]

Don't like this method at all, sorry. It's redundant and non-semantic. Also, backwards compatibility is not a design requirement here. Additionally, we may have situations where the P2 and P3 versions of a package differ.

So, we have two choices:

{
'python2.7': {
    'psycopg2': {
        'version': '2.6.1',
        'path': os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)),
                                'psycopg2', 'python2.7-psycopg2-2.6.1.tar.gz'),
    }
},
'python3.6': {
    'psycopg2': {
        'version': '3.0.0',
        'path': os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)),
                                'psycopg2', 'python3.6-psycopg2-3.0.0.tar.gz'),
    }
},

OR

{
'psycopg2': {
    'python2.7': {
        'version': '2.6.1',
        'path': os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)),
                                'psycopg2', 'python2.7-psycopg2-2.6.1.tar.gz'),
        }
    },
    'python3.6': {
        'version': '3.0.0',
        'path': os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)),
                                'psycopg2', 'python3.6-psycopg2-3.0.0.tar.gz'),
        }
    }
}

Looking at it now, I think I prefer the second.

[wagmiwiz]

Agree. Have thought of the same but was under impression backwards compatibility was important. If not then this is much nicer, will update PR.

[wagmiwiz]

Done: #45

[readevalprint]

Thanks for the work you all have done on this because this problem just hit me. I'd be happy to help test it.

[u-nux]

#45 merged, why issue still open, is that not full support yet?

[Miserlou]

Yeah, this can be changed, it landed in Zappa 0.41.2.