Skip to content
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

WIP: Update recipe to version 34.1.1 #56

Closed
wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

jjhelmus
Copy link
Contributor

@jjhelmus jjhelmus commented Feb 1, 2017

No description provided.

@jjhelmus jjhelmus changed the title Update recipe to version 34.0.1 WIP: Update recipe to version 34.0.1 Feb 1, 2017
@conda-forge-linter
Copy link

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 (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

Uses a bootstap version of pip to run the bootstrap.py script
@jjhelmus jjhelmus changed the title WIP: Update recipe to version 34.0.1 WIP: Update recipe to version 34.1.0 Feb 1, 2017
@jjhelmus jjhelmus changed the title WIP: Update recipe to version 34.1.0 WIP: Update recipe to version 34.1.1 Feb 5, 2017
@jjhelmus
Copy link
Contributor Author

jjhelmus commented Feb 5, 2017

setuptools 34.x.x removed the vendored dependencies which requires that they be installed separately. With 34.1.1 this can be done without pip. There is still a bit of an issue with circular dependencies as six, appsdir and packaging require setuptools as a build requirement, but none of them require setuptools as a run time requirement.

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Should we build the last release of 33 first? Any other actions we need to take with the dependencies?

@jjhelmus
Copy link
Contributor Author

jjhelmus commented Feb 5, 2017

Should we build the last release of 33 first?

I have no opinion on if a 33.1.1 release is needed. The changes for that release do not seem too major to warrent a seperate issue.

Any other actions we need to take with the dependencies?

I do not believe so. Since we already have setuptools conda packages and its dependencies, there should not be an issue with continuing to build new versions. Creating a setuptools package for a new version of Python or a new platform will require some work but I think that can be dealt with when we get to that point.

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Side note: Issue ( pypa/setuptools#980 ) looks to be of interest.

- certifi
- packaging
- six
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess we can't avoid having these as build dependencies too, right?

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Merged with master to resolve conflicts.

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Would really appreciate if some people took a look at and chimed in on issue ( pypa/setuptools#980 ). The future of setuptools is under discussion as well as how one has to package it.

cc @conda-forge/core @conda-forge/setuptools @mingwandroid

@mingwandroid
Copy link

mingwandroid commented Apr 10, 2017

Thanks for the info @jakirkham, my only comment here is to say that being able to bootstrap an entire distribution is extremely important and that when dependencies end up cyclic that is no longer possible. Is my reading of the situation close to the mark?

If it is of any use as a data-point, I have successfully bootstrapped a cross-compiled Miniconda-like distribution based on conda-forge recipes recently with setuptools 33.1.1.

If there's anything I can do to help this situation then please let me know. Using pre-built binaries is not possible when bootstrapping for a new platform.

@mwcraig
Copy link

mwcraig commented Apr 10, 2017

Sorry, but I really don't have anything useful to contribute (read the issue you referenced, at least until my eyes glazed over).

@patricksnape
Copy link

Yikes, that's a mess. Not sure what I can do but happy to help.

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

Superseded by #66

@nicoddemus nicoddemus closed this Jul 22, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants