Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2021 23:40:18 +0100 From: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, python@freebsd.org Cc: Koichiro Iwao <meta@freebsd.org>, ports-developers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: devel/py-pyparsing and devel/py-packaging have circular dependency Message-ID: <2b37c7f7-1b3b-24fa-e209-f93f1bf4efaf@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <b9629604-eee0-acde-2b15-81955fd11259@freebsd.org> References: <e274d860b9a4319196a0c18cf34fbe20@freebsd.org> <eeaf3aa09629271399e35edd5284d814@freebsd.org> <CAMHz58Qd9u=KGZdWku3yZBz2AAbA65myS8H3r2T49k18xEQZ2A@mail.gmail.com> <Yas6Itz%2BmRcu9Wbh@FreeBSD.org> <b9629604-eee0-acde-2b15-81955fd11259@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --------------Vd3rHy2ui1czzk0A9uPgoQ8q Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------X2N9s25l0SVnMOgTZNy7abYQ"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, python@freebsd.org Cc: Koichiro Iwao <meta@freebsd.org>, ports-developers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <2b37c7f7-1b3b-24fa-e209-f93f1bf4efaf@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: devel/py-pyparsing and devel/py-packaging have circular dependency References: <e274d860b9a4319196a0c18cf34fbe20@freebsd.org> <eeaf3aa09629271399e35edd5284d814@freebsd.org> <CAMHz58Qd9u=KGZdWku3yZBz2AAbA65myS8H3r2T49k18xEQZ2A@mail.gmail.com> <Yas6Itz+mRcu9Wbh@FreeBSD.org> <b9629604-eee0-acde-2b15-81955fd11259@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <b9629604-eee0-acde-2b15-81955fd11259@freebsd.org> --------------X2N9s25l0SVnMOgTZNy7abYQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 04.12.21 um 14:19 schrieb Stefan Esser: > Am 04.12.21 um 10:51 schrieb Alexey Dokuchaev: >> On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 05:45:55PM +0800, Po-Chuan Hsieh wrote: >>> The python dependencies are all correct. >>> py-pyparsing DOES NOT REQUIRE py-packaging. >=20 > True, but apparently only when building in a clean jail. >=20 >> I concur; just built and packaged those ports successfully in my tinde= rbox >> against Python versions 3.8 and 3.9. >=20 > Yes, it works when building with poudriere, but no, it does not > work with a plain "make" on a system with other Python ports > already installed. >=20 > In order to observe the issue, I had to delete the two packages > with "pkg delete -f". They cannot be re-installed from a port > using a plain "make" on the base system, thereafter. A personal mail from Kai Knoblich mentioned PR 259981: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D259981 The issue is that py-setuptools_scm depends on py-packaging and py-pyparsing, and it is used for all dependency checks when a ports setup.py is executed. IMHO, a failure of setuptools_scm due to a missing run dependency should lead to a fall-back mode that works as if setuptools_scm was not installed at all. Less than 70 of 7070 ports in devel/py-* have a direct dependency on py-setuptools_scm. But as soon as py-setuptools_scm is installed, it is invoked even for ports that do not depend on it (like py-packaging and py-pyparsing). And if it fails due to failed imports, then it prevents configuring of ports *that do not actually depend on it*. If a execution of py-setuptools_scm was fatal only for ports that have a direct dependency on it, then the build of py-packaging and py-pyparsing could succeed, even with py-setuptools_scm not usable. I have tried all permutations of parameters in the following command: # portmaster devel/py-black devel/py-pyparsing devel/py-packaging \ devel/py-setuptools_scm And this command succeed every time and for each permutation that I tried, independently of whether these ports were installed or not at that time. But if only py-pyparsing or py-packaging is missing, then the existence of py-setuptools_scm prevents their installation from a port, as described in this PR. Again: IMHO a failure to execute py-setuptools_scm should not be fatal, except for ports that directly depend on it. I have no idea whether that can easily be achieved, but I do not see any other solution. Can an option be passed to a port's setup.py to prevent it from trying to invoke py-setuptools_scm? (It would suffice to pass such an option for builds of py-pyparsing and py-packaging.) And again: this is not a portmaster issue. It affects building of ports with plain make in the same way, if one of the two packages py-setuptools_scm depends on has been lost. Regards, STefan --------------X2N9s25l0SVnMOgTZNy7abYQ-- --------------Vd3rHy2ui1czzk0A9uPgoQ8q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wsB5BAABCAAjFiEEo3HqZZwL7MgrcVMTR+u171r99UQFAmGr7lIFAwAAAAAACgkQR+u171r99UR5 yAf/a1zAJty3CWBBQSG61FiZScW7T648xtYuFZdKoO5WW5AcqlIFofkRy6Wwof8pggUGNTYIFbz2 aPBOxGTngi+xOq9dX9uryP/5tj5KqmQhQnLlQKc48MVY72yoRNDNOjtpZFWWfMUUIITSKC9EOsQu RWbtL6s7i28Pi7dfBIyBeSHsGYWRx9l2t0v92CuHYXfX5Xv0ZAx3zjXz0ys5ibW9D4Xjx3Fom3FX I7kzVBfks8Exg+STSl16z64Ym7v7DOB+v0oHR7CdP4m/paz8prpG+CW08r0fEk9YiHPjryhdmwnx 82+ND/kA2XZXUaF5q/8P8XX+WKVEPojH7qWUv1NtSg== =TBcL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------Vd3rHy2ui1czzk0A9uPgoQ8q--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2b37c7f7-1b3b-24fa-e209-f93f1bf4efaf>