This actually is good question. WSGI framework was deprecate at IceHouse release(as I can recall). So, Trove should migrate to Pecan ReST framework as soon as possible during Kilo release.<div>So, for now, the short answer - it's impossible to fix Trove to be ready for Py3.4 unfortunately.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Denis Makogon</div><div><br><br>суббота, 26 июля 2014 г. пользователь Thomas Goirand написал:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Trove is using wsgi-intercept. So it ended in the<br>
global-requirements.txt. It was ok until what's below...<br>
<br>
I was trying to fix this bug:<br>
<a href="https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=755315" target="_blank">https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=755315</a><br>
<br>
then I realize that the last version had the fix for Python 3.4. So I<br>
tried upgrading. But doing so, I have found out that wsgi-intercept now<br>
imports mechanize.<br>
<br>
The mechanize package from pypi is in a *very* bad state. It embeds all<br>
sorts of Python modules, like request, rfc3986, urllib2, beautifulsoup,<br>
and probably a lot more. It also isn't Python 3 compatible. I tried<br>
patching it. I ended up with:<br>
<br>
_beautifulsoup.py | 12 ++++++------<br>
_form.py | 12 ++++++------<br>
_html.py | 8 ++++----<br>
_http.py | 4 ++--<br>
_mechanize.py | 2 +-<br>
_msiecookiejar.py | 4 ++--<br>
_opener.py | 2 +-<br>
_sgmllib_copy.py | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------<br>
_urllib2_fork.py | 14 +++++++-------<br>
9 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)<br>
<br>
probably that's not even enough to make it work with Python 3.4.<br>
<br>
Then I tried running the unit tests. First, they fail with Python 2.7 (2<br>
errors). It's to be noted that the unit tests were not even run at build<br>
time for the package. Then for Python 3, there's all sorts of errors<br>
that needs to be fixed as well...<br>
<br>
At this point, I gave-up with mechanize. But then, this makes me wonder:<br>
can we continue to use wsgi-intercept if it depends on such a bad Python<br>
module.<br>
<br>
If we are to stick to an older version of wsgi-intercept (which I do not<br>
recommend, for maintainability reasons), could someone help me to fix<br>
the Python 3.4 issue I'm having with wsgi-intercept? Removing Python 3<br>
support would be sad... :(<br>
<br>
Your thoughts?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Thomas Goirand (zigo)<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org')">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>