Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

back to single package scheme #935

Closed
5 tasks done
svinota opened this issue Jun 19, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed
5 tasks done

back to single package scheme #935

svinota opened this issue Jun 19, 2022 · 5 comments
Labels
fr

Comments

@svinota
Copy link
Owner

svinota commented Jun 19, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Multiple packages scheme turned out to be too complicated for packagers, so:

  • move all the sub packages back to the main one, using one main source tree
  • one root setup.py/cfg for the main package and one more for pyroute2-minimal (autogenerated?)
  • ⚠️ save pr2modules for the time being (⇐ later use deprecation warning for the rest of 0.7.x cycle)
  • generate pyroute2-minimal automatically from the main tree (manual modules list for the start)
  • investigate if it's ok to mark modules as «safe» based on strict import checks, and use only «safe» ones in pyroute2-minimal

Related:
@svinota svinota added the fr label Jun 19, 2022
@svinota svinota moved this to In Progress in pyroute2: layout Jun 20, 2022
@henning-schild
Copy link
Contributor

from a gentoo perspective i would really appreciate that move, but i can not rule out that gentoo users might one day want to install the split packages

So for i did not try super hard, but if gentoo is not the only voice saying ... "this split is overly complicated", i would be happy to see a build version which squashes all into one. And reading comments in the gentoo PR gentoo/gentoo#25833 it seems like there have been other voices.

Thanks for considering that move!

@henning-schild
Copy link
Contributor

Feel free to notify me for a review/try of a PR. If i have a git commit i can go ahead and try if building for gentoo gets easier once back to one package.

svinota added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 23, 2022
@svinota
layout: back to the single package layout
4baca6a 
Bug-Url: #935
@henning-schild henning-schild mentioned this issue Jun 29, 2022
Closed
@svinota
Copy link
Owner Author

svinota commented Jul 13, 2022 •
edited
Loading

@henning-schild — version 0.7.1 is tagged

openstack-mirroring pushed a commit to openstack/openstack that referenced this issue Jul 14, 2022
@openstack-gerrit
Update git submodules
0fce3ed 
* Update requirements from branch 'master'
  to dd5375f5291e0353c7fa05e48c50116dba9c6e9e
  - Merge "Bump pyroute2 to 0.7.1"
  - Bump pyroute2 to 0.7.1
    
    Since [1], pyroute2 went back to the single package schema. All
    submodules are removed from the requirements.
    
    [1]svinota/pyroute2#935
    
    Change-Id: I9da6cb0dbff651b281246de559d9dc324d3c3af1
openstack-mirroring pushed a commit to openstack/requirements that referenced this issue Jul 14, 2022
@ralonsoh
Bump pyroute2 to 0.7.1
fadd51c 
Since [1], pyroute2 went back to the single package schema. All
submodules are removed from the requirements.

[1]svinota/pyroute2#935

Change-Id: I9da6cb0dbff651b281246de559d9dc324d3c3af1
@svinota svinota closed this as completed Jul 19, 2022
Repository owner moved this from In Progress to Done in pyroute2: layout Jul 19, 2022
@thomasgoirand
Copy link
Contributor

Hi. FYI, I'm discovering that we're going back to single-package stuff. Well, what's bad isn't complicated packages. From my perspective (packaging in Debian), what's bad is disruptive changes. I would have preferred that things stayed the way they were, because now I need more work (again) on this package, which worked already very well.

Please avoid going back and forth in the future...

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

@svinota
Copy link
Owner Author

svinota commented Aug 31, 2022

Hey @thomasgoirand . I'm sorry, it's try to find a balance between all the packaging schemes, thus I'm probably abusing distros with more flexible packaging in order to ease life for those with less flexible.

But I promise this change was the last one, at least until versoin > 1.0.

And thank you a lot for your efforts supporting the packaging, really.

algitbot pushed a commit to alpinelinux/aports that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2022
@liske @nekopsykose
community/py3-pyroute2: upgrade to 0.7.3
02ca31e 
and merge the other pyroute2* aports into the main one, as they are just
one package now. svinota/pyroute2#935
tanaypf9 pushed a commit to tanaypf9/pf9-requirements that referenced this issue May 20, 2024
@ralonsoh
Bump pyroute2 to 0.7.2
0528d4b 
Since [1], pyroute2 went back to the single package schema. All
submodules are removed from the requirements.

This patch also blocks 0.7.1 due to [2]. The following issues in
pyroute2 project were reported and fixed in this version:
* svinota/pyroute2#962
* svinota/pyroute2#964

[1]svinota/pyroute2#935
[2]https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1981963

Related-Bug: #1981963
Change-Id: I36532033c4173164e5709030f5e940a40755ae43
@nehaljwani nehaljwani mentioned this issue Nov 25, 2024
Open
3 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
fr
Projects
pyroute2: layout
Status: Done
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@svinota @thomasgoirand @henning-schild