New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Mass rebuild packages with Python 3.11 #746
Mass rebuild packages with Python 3.11 #746
Conversation
2c6102f
to
94672d3
Compare
BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools_scm_git_archive | ||
BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros | ||
|
||
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name}} | ||
# This should be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can now support rich dependencies so you can update it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How would be the best to change this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the suggestion is in the file itself. @evgeni any thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
pyproject-rpm-macros is a project we build for EL8, it's present on EL9 by default, but we need this for PEP-517, we build this internally
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not talking about the BuildRequires, but about the comment (and the lines that follow).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh ok, we would need to work in all packages, because we use the same line for all packages.
The packages got built here https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/theforeman/pulpcore-nightly-staging/packages/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We declare the module dependencies here:
pulpcore-packaging/modulemd/modulemd-pulpcore-el8.yaml
Lines 16 to 21 in 9ac98f8
- buildrequires: | |
platform: ['el8'] | |
python39: ['3.9'] | |
requires: | |
platform: ['el8'] | |
python39: ['3.9'] |
At the least, we should drop that. But if we no longer need modularity for Python 3.11, does it still make sense to have a pulpcore module?
Python 3.11 don't ship with modules on EL8
Modules dropped with 240f0b8 |
@ekohl can we merge this? I want to address the other pulp bits today, and later this week work on the obsoletes that we need for upgrades from python39 to 3.11 |
So, reviewing this pr, and the trade-offs of needing something functional to keep other trains moving smoothly, I'm going ahead and merging this PR. It appears most everything should be mostly functional to a degree good enough to iterate on top of to fix issues that crop up. Anything that is felt should have been addressed before merging this PR, let's identify them and create action items to follow up on asap after. |
No description provided.