Re: 01/07: gnu: python-packaging: Update to 20.4.

Re: 01/07: gnu: python-packaging: Update to 20.4.

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1139 bytes --]

Hello,

guix-commits@gnu.org skriver:

> ngz pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository guix.
>
> commit 71b15b4874b7f9ec7001d2916a8ab27dcce6cdc0
> Author: Tanguy Le Carrour <tanguy@bioneland.org>
> AuthorDate: Mon Nov 30 10:48:57 2020 +0100
>
>     gnu: python-packaging: Update to 20.4.
>     
>     * gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm (python-packaging): Update to 20.4.
>     [source]: Remove patch that has been merged upstream.
>     * gnu/packages/patches/python-packaging-test-arch.patch: Remove file.
>     * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Apply removal.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>

I have just reverted this patch on 'master' because it caused 6328
rebuilds.  It's not obvious, because they come via the 'bootstrap'
variant defined below the main package:

  $ guix refresh -l -e '(@ (gnu packages python-xyz) python-packaging-bootstrap)'
  Building the following 2399 packages would ensure 6328 dependent
  packages are rebuilt: [...]

Not sure how we can improve on this.  Thoughts?

@Tanguy: do you know if Poetry will still work with the old version?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: 01/07: gnu: python-packaging: Update to 20.4.

[Tanguy LE CARROUR]

Hi Marius!


Excerpts from Marius Bakke's message of December 2, 2020 12:10 am:
> Hello,
> 
> guix-commits@gnu.org skriver:
> 
>> ngz pushed a commit to branch master
>> in repository guix.
>>
>> commit 71b15b4874b7f9ec7001d2916a8ab27dcce6cdc0
>> Author: Tanguy Le Carrour <tanguy@bioneland.org>
>> AuthorDate: Mon Nov 30 10:48:57 2020 +0100
>>
>>     gnu: python-packaging: Update to 20.4.
>>     
>>     * gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm (python-packaging): Update to 20.4.
>>     [source]: Remove patch that has been merged upstream.
>>     * gnu/packages/patches/python-packaging-test-arch.patch: Remove file.
>>     * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Apply removal.
>>     
>>     Signed-off-by: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
> 
> I have just reverted this patch on 'master' because it caused 6328
> rebuilds.

So, this is the situation Nicolas was talking about!
Sorry guys for the inconvenience! :-(


> It's not obvious, because they come via the 'bootstrap'
> variant defined below the main package:
> 
>   $ guix refresh -l -e '(@ (gnu packages python-xyz) python-packaging-bootstrap)'
>   Building the following 2399 packages would ensure 6328 dependent
>   packages are rebuilt: [...]
> 
> Not sure how we can improve on this.  Thoughts?

What about applying the same `/next` trick that you suggested for
`distlib`?


> @Tanguy: do you know if Poetry will still work with the old version?

Probably not… I'll have to check. But anyway, Sébastien and I might be
the only persons using it, so… it's no big deal, I guess! :-)

Thanks for caring!

-- 
Tanguy

Re: 01/07: gnu: python-packaging: Update to 20.4.

[Tanguy LE CARROUR]

Hi Marius!


Excerpts from Tanguy LE CARROUR's message of December 2, 2020 8:56 am:
> Excerpts from Marius Bakke's message of December 2, 2020 12:10 am:
>> guix-commits@gnu.org skriver:
>> 
>>> ngz pushed a commit to branch master
>>> in repository guix.
>>>
>>> commit 71b15b4874b7f9ec7001d2916a8ab27dcce6cdc0
>>> Author: Tanguy Le Carrour <tanguy@bioneland.org>
>>> AuthorDate: Mon Nov 30 10:48:57 2020 +0100
>>>
>>>     gnu: python-packaging: Update to 20.4.
>>>     
>>>     * gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm (python-packaging): Update to 20.4.
>>>     [source]: Remove patch that has been merged upstream.
>>>     * gnu/packages/patches/python-packaging-test-arch.patch: Remove file.
>>>     * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Apply removal.
>>>     
>>>     Signed-off-by: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
>> 
>> I have just reverted this patch on 'master' because it caused 6328
>> rebuilds.
>> […]
>> @Tanguy: do you know if Poetry will still work with the old version?
> 
> Probably not… I'll have to check. But anyway, Sébastien and I might be
> the only persons using it, so… it's no big deal, I guess! :-)

In fact, it does not!
I've just submitted patch #45003 that seems to solve the problem.

-- 
Tanguy