Re: Python

[Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>]

Hello Lars,

Am Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 07:08:44PM +0100 schrieb Lars-Dominik Braun:
> sorry, I can’t quite keep up with the Python issues on core-updates
> right now :(

thanks for your reply, this is very helpful, as I am more than insecure
when it comes to python packaging!

> > Yet another python failure: python-pathlib
> this is a backport of Python’s built-in pathlib library. It should be
> dropped as a dependency for all of these packages, since our Python is >=
> 3.4 – the version pathlib was introduced into the standard library. And
> then drop the package entirely.

Good, thanks for the info.

What generally makes me hesitant is that we are down to manual dependency
resolution without having a good overview:
I need python-json-spec, which so far had pathlib as an input.
When I drop pathlib, the package nevertheless fails to build due to its
own Collection.abc issue. So I tried to update it to the latest version.

This version requires python-importlib-metadata; not its latest version 6,
but something at least 5 and less than 6. We were still at 4.something.
So I have just updated it to 5.2.0, the latest version 5 from last December.
This gives me python-json-spec, so I am one step closer to calibre, which
I am interested in.

But python-importlib-metadata has 892 dependents (among which interesting
looking ones, such as freecad and gnome-terminal). I wonder whether I am not
breaking 891 dependents by enabling, maybe, the one that I am interested in.

Anyway, I am operating from the assumption that updating to a newer version
is always good, and that packages that do not build anymore will have to
be updated or patched themselves. Hopefully this is a reasonable assumption
in the python world... If not, please feel free to revert my changes and to
propose a different solution.

Andreas