[Backport release-24.11] python312Packages.pkginfo: 1.11.1 -> 1.12.0 #366944
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
FYI: @dotlambda @jbaum98 |
|
Changelog: https://pypi.org/project/pkginfo/#pkginfo-changelog (cherry picked from commit 6b32ff9) pkginfo 1.12.0 supports a new metadata format - verison 2.4. If you run "poetry lock" and it tries to process a package that has updated to use this format, poetry fails with an error. A number of packages on pypi are now using this format - for example Pydantic. The error that occurs without this change looks something like (edited a bit for clarity): NewMetadataVersion: New metadata version (2.4) higher than latest supported version: parsing as 2.3 Unable to determine package info for path: /var/folders/ff/m96xlgrd72vf894h3wtw6wtw0000gq/T/tmpourev7sh/pydantic-2.10.4-py3-none-any.whl Unknown metadata version: 2.4
|
@wolfgangwalther I tried to re-create what you saw. And I'm also seeing failures. But, the failures don't really make sense to me in terms of the change I'm proposing here. For example, i'm seeing a failure like this with And, its super unclear to me how upgrading this package would cause another package to experience a timeout while running tests. So, I dunno, I'm at a bit of a loss here. |
DaGenix
force-pushed
the
update-pkginfo
branch
from
6edc0c3 to
e7b1d75
Compare
|
|
Hm, I tried to build some of the failing packages manually on this branch and they all succeeded. Those test failures might just happen because of running multiple builds in parallel with nixpkgs-review. So while there is a lot of noise in the build results, we should confirm that none of those is a real failure caused by the update. |
|
@wolfgangwalther I tried with Command:
|
Hm, on the release-24.11 branch I do this: So jupysql seems to build just fine on that branch. However, I can't build it myself either, so it's very likely a sandboxing issue - not a blocker for me. I'm running a nixpkgs-review with |
|
Forgot to post my result of running it with "-j1":
|
|
I didn't find any blockers for linux, either. So at least x86_64-linux and x86_64-darwin should be good to go. I wonder whether this should target |
|
The numbers shown here aren't a big deal. At this moment you could switch to |
wolfgangwalther
approved these changes
Jan 1, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changelog: https://pypi.org/project/pkginfo/#pkginfo-changelog (cherry picked from commit 6b32ff9)
pkginfo 1.12.0 supports a new metadata format - verison 2.4. If you run "poetry lock" and it tries to process a package that has updated to use this format, poetry fails with an error. A number of packages on pypi are now using this format - for example Pydantic.
The error that occurs without this change looks something like (edited a bit for clarity):
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.