Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

Last modified 10 years ago

#11363 closed task (fixed)

Update setuptools to a newer version

Reported by: fbissey Owned by: tbd
Priority: major Milestone: sage-4.7.1
Component: packages: standard Keywords:
Cc: Merged in: sage-4.7.1.alpha3
Authors: François Bissey Reviewers: Mariah Lenox
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Status badges

Description (last modified by mariah)

For #9958 we will need a newer version of setuptools. Early testing indicate that twisted cannot be installed with the currently shipped version of setuptools and python-2.7.1.

Apply: http://www.d.umn.edu/~strogdon/sage/setuptools-0.6.16.spkg

When this ticket is closed, ticket #10361 can also be closed.

Attachments (2)

setuptools-update.patch (6.6 KB) - added by fbissey 10 years ago.
update patch, for reviewer only
SPKG.txt.patch (1.1 KB) - added by fbissey 10 years ago.
Latest changes to SPKG.txt for the reviewer only

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (26)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

  • Description modified (diff)

Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

update patch, for reviewer only

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

  • Status changed from new to needs_review

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by kcrisman

I don't know if this matters, but I get

patching file setup.py
Hunk #1 succeeded at 137 with fuzz 2 (offset 111 lines).

else it installs fine for me.

comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

I can remove the fuzz but I am not worried by it. I consider a normal part of the patch "aging process" but the ability of fuzz make them a bit more robust and durable than just copying files. But I guess you shouldn't have fuzz for a patch introduced to sage for the first time. I lifted it from Gentoo where it was introduced in an earlier version.

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

  • Authors set to François Bissey
  • Description modified (diff)

Fuzz removed in ".p0" I had to give it a distinct name because google-code doesn't let delete or replace the old one. It should really be just 0.6.16

comment:6 follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by mariah

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

http://spkg-upload.googlecode.com/files/setuptools-0.6.16.p0.spkg unpacks to setuptools-0.6.16 when it should unpack to setuptools-0.6.16.p0.

comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

Replying to mariah:

http://spkg-upload.googlecode.com/files/setuptools-0.6.16.p0.spkg unpacks to setuptools-0.6.16 when it should unpack to setuptools-0.6.16.p0.

Working on that. It shouldn't have been named .p0 in the first place, I have to find another place to host the spkg otherwise I'll to name it .p1.

comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

OK I have it hosted with the right name by my friend Steve now.

comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by mariah

  • Reviewers set to Mariah Lenox
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Built sage-4.7.rc4 with setuptools-0.6.16.spkg with 'make testlong'. All tests passed. Positive review!

comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by Koen

As soon as this ticket is fixed, then Ticket #10361 can also be closed (as this ticket supersedes that one by upgrading to an even newer setuptools, and fixing the Twisted/OSX issue).

comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

Pity I didn't see that ticket. May be I would have reviewed it instead.

comment:12 Changed 10 years ago by mariah

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:13 Changed 10 years ago by jhpalmieri

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

As far as I can tell, the spkg here is not really setuptools, but a fork of it called "distribute". At least, I can't find setuptools 0.6.16 on the setuptools web page http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools, but I do see it on the distribute page http://pypi.python.org/pypi/distribute. This needs to be documented in the SPKG.txt file: update both the description and the web page.

On the bright side, on my OS X box at least, it doesn't seem to suffer from the same problem as reported on #10361.

comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

Right. I should have paid more attention you are right. I will update SPKG.txt with the needed info. I will post again when it is available so you can decide if it can be switched back to positive review.

Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

Latest changes to SPKG.txt for the reviewer only

comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

New spkg uploaded at the same location. I attached a patch which details my latest change to SPKG.txt.

comment:16 Changed 10 years ago by jhpalmieri

  • Status changed from needs_work to positive_review

comment:17 Changed 10 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Merged in set to sage-4.7.1.alpha3
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed

comment:18 Changed 10 years ago by jhpalmieri

Ticket #7230 can also be closed because of this.

comment:19 Changed 10 years ago by leif

I think it's not a bad idea to look at previous tickets dealing with an spkg when updating it.

In this case #10361 (updating setuptools to 0.6c11), which got positively reviewed and merged, but later unmerged again due to an issue with twisted on MacOS X.

The changes made there, namely

  • making spkg-install executable,
  • adding a Special Update / Build Instructions section to SPKG.txt (with a note on deleting the Windows binaries),
  • removing mabs from the spkg maintainer list (I'm not sure if that's still desired),
  • substituting #!/bin/sh by #!/usr/bin/env bash, and, last but not least
  • adding error checks to spkg-install (though now in addition patches are applied from it)

are all missing in the new spkg here.

Btw, the patch setuptools-update.patch (for review purposes) doesn't really reflect the changes made to (Sage's part of) the spkg, which is perhaps minor here, but still a bit confusing.

comment:20 follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

You are quite right leif and I probably could have done a better job. My only defense is I absolutely hate searching on trac. It takes ages and most of the results are not that relevant. I get better results from Gentoo's bugzilla - although it is sometimes quite slow at least I usually got interesting results.

I am not sure I understand your last comment. The posted patch summarizes the changes to the spkg and is not meant to be applied, just to give you a quick look at the changes. It seems to be a common enough practice.

comment:21 in reply to: ↑ 20 Changed 10 years ago by leif

Replying to fbissey:

You are quite right leif and I probably could have done a better job.

Well, there are reviewers, too, and in fact some people who commented here were aware of that ticket.


My only defense is I absolutely hate searching on trac. It takes ages and most of the results are not that relevant.

Yes, especially if you're searching for things like R... 8-)


I am not sure I understand your last comment. The posted patch summarizes the changes to the spkg and is not meant to be applied, just to give you a quick look at the changes. It seems to be a common enough practice.

Not really relevant here, but even patches / diffs just for reference should IMHO be up-to-date. I just stumbled upon

  • setup.py

     
    2626    url = "http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools",
    2727    test_suite = 'setuptools.tests',
    2828    packages = find_packages(),
    29     package_data = {'setuptools':['*.exe']},
    3029 
    3130    py_modules = ['pkg_resources', 'easy_install', 'site'],

which definitely belongs to an earlier version of the spkg. (Note the url in the context.)

If someone is lazy (like me), he might review (more or less) just the spkg diff on trac as is, assuming it reflects the current state of the spkg, such that mistakes or unintended changes made later may sneak in.

comment:22 Changed 10 years ago by leif

P.S.: I usually cc the spkg maintainers (as listed in SPKG.txt, and also on a completely outdated wiki page ;-) ), though apparently these entries have lost meaning, unfortunately.

comment:23 follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by leif

P.P.S.: You can also search (with Ggle) http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac, which even gives suitable results for "R".

That's IMHO the only useful aspect of this group; I don't like feeding Ggle with all that stuff otherwise.

comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 23 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

Replying to leif:

P.P.S.: You can also search (with Ggle) http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac, which even gives suitable results for "R".

That's IMHO the only useful aspect of this group; I don't like feeding Ggle with all that stuff otherwise.

Possibly the best idea since sliced bread! Thanks a lot for pointing it out. And yes I have been treating maintainers like they do not exist (apart David Kirkby but we seem to end up doing a lot of things together so this may explain that) which is of course terribly impolite of me.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.