<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:03 AM Előd Illés <elod.illes@est.tech> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>First, sorry for the slow response.</p>
<p>I think pinning setuptools in requirements for stable branches is
also a good idea (up till wallaby). I can accept that.</p>
<p>Another thing is that the openstack projects that I've checked
don't have issues in their CI regarding the unpinned setuptools.
Mostly I saw/see the problem in unit test, static code check and
similar tox targets.</p>
<p>Anyway, if this issue is there for devstack for others then I
think we can cap setuptools, too, in requirements repository, if
it is OK for everyone. My only concern is to cap it from the
newest relevant stable branch where we need it. If I'm not
mistaken most of the projects have fixed their related issue in
Xena, so I guess Wallaby should be the first branch to cap
setuptools.<br></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't know if someone was working on it already but I proposed the patch on Ussuri: <a href="https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/821878">https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/821878</a></div><div>If this gets accepted, I'll backport it to stable/train as well.</div><div><br></div><div>Without that patch, it's impossible to use Devstack outside of the gate to deploy Ussuri or Train.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p>
</p>
<p>Thanks,<br>
</p>
<p>Előd</p>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 2021. 10. 04. 20:16, Neil Jerram
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">I can now confirm that <a href="https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/810859" target="_blank">https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/810859</a>
fixes my CI use case. (By temporarily using a fork of the
requirements repo that includes that change.)</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>(Fix detail if needed here: <a href="https://github.com/projectcalico/networking-calico/pull/64/commits/cbed6282405957f7d60b6e0790c91fb852afe84c" target="_blank">https://github.com/projectcalico/networking-calico/pull/64/commits/cbed6282405957f7d60b6e0790c91fb852afe84c</a>)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes.</div>
<div> Neil</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:28
PM Neil Jerram <<a href="mailto:neil@tigera.io" target="_blank">neil@tigera.io</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Is anyone helping to progress this? I just
checked that stable/ussuri devstack is still broken.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes,</div>
<div> Neil</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at
9:20 AM Neil Jerram <<a href="mailto:neil@tigera.io" target="_blank">neil@tigera.io</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">But I don't think that solution works for
devstack, does it? Is there a way to pin setuptools
in a stable/ussuri devstack run, except by changing
the stable branch of the requirements project?
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Sep 27, 2021
at 7:50 PM Előd Illés <a href="mailto:elod.illes@est.tech" target="_blank"><elod.illes@est.tech></a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi again,<br>
<br>
as I see there is no objection yet about using
gibi's solution [1] (as I <br>
already summarized the situation in my previous mail
[2]) for a fix for <br>
similar cases, so with a general stable core hat on,
I *suggest* <br>
everyone to use that solution to pin the setuptools
in tox for every <br>
failing cases (so that to avoid similar future
errors as well).<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://review.opendev.org/810461" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.opendev.org/810461</a><br>
[2] <br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-September/025059.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-September/025059.html</a><br>
<br>
Előd<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2021. 09. 27. 14:47, Balazs Gibizer wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Sep 24 2021 at 10:21:33 PM +0200,
Thomas Goirand <br>
> <<a href="mailto:zigo@debian.org" target="_blank">zigo@debian.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
>> Hi Gibi!<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for bringing this up.<br>
>><br>
>> As a distro package maintainer, here's my
view.<br>
>><br>
>> On 9/22/21 2:11 PM, Balazs Gibizer wrote:<br>
>>> Option 1: Bump the major version of
the decorator dependency on <br>
>>> stable.<br>
>><br>
>> Decorator 4.0.11 is even in Debian Stretch
(currently oldoldstable), for<br>
>> which I don't even maintain OpenStack
anymore (that's OpenStack<br>
>> Newton...). So I don't see how switching to
decorator 4.0.0 is a<br>
>> problem, and I don't understand how
OpenStack could be using 3.4.0 which<br>
>> is in Jessie (ie: 6 years old Debian
release).<br>
>><br>
>> PyPi says Decorator 3.4.0 is from 2012:<br>
>> <a href="https://pypi.org/project/decorator/#history" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pypi.org/project/decorator/#history</a><br>
>><br>
>> Do you have your release numbers correct?
If so, then switching to<br>
>> Decorator 4.4.2 (available in Debian
Bullseye (shipped with Victoria)<br>
>> and Ubuntu >=Focal) looks like
reasonable to me... Sticking with 3.4.0<br>
>> feels a bit crazy (and I wasn't aware of
it).<br>
><br>
> Thanks for the info. So from Debian perspective
it is OK to bump the <br>
> decorator version on stable. As others noted in
this thread it seems <br>
> to be more than just decorator that broke. :/<br>
><br>
>><br>
>>> Option 2: Pin the setuptools version
during tox installation<br>
>><br>
>> Please don't do this for the master branch,
we need OpenStack to stay<br>
>> current with setuptools (yeah, even if this
means breaking changes...).<br>
><br>
> I've no intention to pin it on master. Master
needs to work with the <br>
> latest and greatest. Also on master it is
easier to fix / replace the <br>
> dependencies that become broken with new
setuptools.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> For already released OpenStack: I don't
mind much if this is done (I<br>
>> could backport fixes if something breaks).<br>
><br>
> ack<br>
><br>
>><br>
>>> Option 3: turn off lower-constraints
testing<br>
>><br>
>> I already expressed myself about this: this
is dangerous as distros rely<br>
>> on it for setting lower bounds as low as
possible (which is always<br>
>> preferred from a distro point of view).<br>
>><br>
>>> Option 4: utilize pyproject.toml[6] to
specify build-time requirements<br>
>><br>
>> I don't know about pyproject.toml.<br>
>><br>
>> Just my 2 cents, hoping it's useful,<br>
><br>
> Thanks!<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> gibi<br>
><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>> Thomas Goirand (zigo)<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Emilien Macchi<br></div></div></div>