WIP: protobuf 5.26.1 #215
Draft
WIP: protobuf 5.26.1 #215
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…nda-forge-pinning 2024.05.06.07.27.40
|
Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service. I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR ( |
This was referenced May 6, 2024
knedlsepp
added a commit
to knedlsepp/nixpkgs
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2024
In order to enable bumping the default protobuf version from protobuf_24 to protobuf_25, we address the build failure of pythonPackages.protobuf against that version. Protobuf's python package is moving away from cpp backend in favor of a µpb backend. (See: https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/tree/main/upb) The work on that seems to have lead to the introduction of a broken test in "minimal_test.py": protocolbuffers/protobuf@501ecec I suspect that this is not an issue on the nixpkgs packaging end but rather that this file is uncovered code upstream. I don't know enough about Bazel to be sure, but it looks like that file is not part of their protobuf/python/BUILD.bazel file. (I wanted to prove that in protocolbuffers/protobuf#16888 but couldn't trigger upstream's CI) So for now let's just skip that file. Note that protobuf_26.tests.pythonProtobuf is still broken. This is due to the fact that upstream removed support for building the library directly from the GitHub repo. (See: protocolbuffers/protobuf#15708) Conda packaging is also currently struggling with this: conda-forge/protobuf-feedstock#215 Related: NixOS#264902
13 tasks
3 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is going to be a bigger operation I fear - just opening this PR as a status update for now. Protobuf removed the usual
setup.pyapproach, and we now either need to deal with the PyPI sources (harder to patch) or build with bazel.Also, the new way to build python from source seems to just rebuild a lot of stuff we already have in libprotobuf (e.g.
utf8_range), and more importantly, alsoupb, which is also being vendored by grpc, causing potential clashes there. I had tried to avoid this in protocolbuffers/protobuf#12927 but to no avail (c.f. also #170).The C++ backend is also removed, so I guess it's not even possible anymore to build atop of
libprotobuf.