Open Stack

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, at 18:29, Michael Still wrote:
> Hi,
> 

<snip>

> This implies to me that perhaps Routes version 2.3.1 is a binary-only
> release and that stable/newton is therefore broken for people who don't
> like binary packages (in my case because they're building an install
> image
> for an architecture which doesn't match their host architecture).
> 

Yes, I think you're correct - there doesn't seem to be a source tarball
for 2.3.1:

https://pypi.python.org/simple/routes/

Pip does find version 2.3:
$ pip install --no-binary :all: Routes==2.3

Collecting Routes==2.3
  Downloading Routes-2.3.tar.gz (181kB)
    100% XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 184kB 3.1MB/s 
Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): six in
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages (from Routes==2.3)
Collecting repoze.lru>=0.3 (from Routes==2.3)
  Downloading repoze.lru-0.6.tar.gz
Installing collected packages: repoze.lru, Routes
  Running setup.py install for repoze.lru ... done
  Running setup.py install for Routes ... done
Successfully installed Routes-2.3 repoze.lru-0.6

Also, AFAICT 2.3.1 was just a single patch over 2.3 for compatibility,
so if you don't need that then you could just stick with 2.3.

-c