Open Stack

 ---- On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 10:34:21 -0600 Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote ----
 > On 2021-01-07 10:15:59 +0000 (+0000), Stephen Finucane wrote:
 > [...]
 > > Out of curiosity, would limiting the list in lower-constraints to
 > > the set of requirements listed in 'requirements.txt' help matters?
 > > That would at least ensure the lower version of our explicit
 > > dependencies worked. The main issue I could see with this is
 > > potentially a lot of thrashing from pip as it attempts to find
 > > versions of implicit dependencies that satisfy the various
 > > constraints, but I guess we'll have to address that when we come
 > > to it.
 > 
 > You can try it locally easily enough, but my recollections from
 > before is that what you'll find for larger projects is old releases
 > of some dependencies don't pin upper bounds of their own
 > dependencies and wind up not being usable because they drag in
 > something newer than they can actually use, so it'll be an iterative
 > effort to figure those out. Which has essentially been my problem
 > with that lower bounds testing model, it's a manual effort to figure
 > out what versions of modules in the transitive set will actually be
 > compatible with one another, and then you basically get to redo that
 > work any time you want to adjust a lower bound for something.
 > 
 > But do give it a shot and let us know if it winds up being easier
 > than all that.

I have not tested it yet but from past testing observation, I remember I end up adding
some implicit deps in l-c as they were not compatible with project explicit
deps and their deps compatibility so it has to be in l-c explicitly. So I am not sure if restricting the l-c
with requirements.txt deps can work or not but good to try.

-gmann

 > -- 
 > Jeremy Stanley
 >