Upgrade pip to 9.0.1

[charpent]

the tar file for pip 9.0.1 is available here:

​https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pip

[charpent]

Failed parallel build log with pip 8 and #21812.

[charpent]

ptestlong log with pip 8 and no patch, exhibiting the problem created by pip advertising its new version.

[charpent]

Log of failed Singular build with pip8, #21812 and parallel building

[charpent]

ptestlong log with pip 8 and #21812 exhibiting the desired result (no spurious doctest failures)

[charpent]

ptestlong log with pip 9 (manuallu upgraded), without #21812 : spurios doctest failures caused by "Deprecation" messages from pip.

[charpent]

ptestlong log obtained with pip9 (manually upgraded) and #21812, showing the spurious doctest failures due to "Deprecation" pip complaints not fixed by #21812.

[charpent]

Note : All these trials were made with #21782, now necessary on my Debian system using gcc 6.2.0.

The logs show that :

• without #21812, pip 8.x.y (our current version) advertising its new version creates spurious doctest failures.
• with #21812, pip 8.x.x solves this problem. BUT
• this log was obtained after a serial build of Sage ; a parallel build fails on Singular.
• Manually upgrading pip to 9.0.0 causes different spurious doctest failures, by pip advertising a deprecation of its previous format.
• These pip 9.0.0 deprecation warnings occur whether or not #21812 is installed.

I conclude that #21812

• is only a temporary fix,
• may be troublesome with some configurations.

[dimpase]

The first question is where Sage's pip is looking for its pip.conf. (to follow the warning to define a list_format in your pip.conf)

[jdemeyer]

The file pip8-patch-parallel-install.log.gz​ shows a build failure with Singular. That is totally unrelated to pip. I believe that there is a problem with building Singular, but that failure has nothing to do with #21812.

[thansen]

The deprecation warnings can be gotten rid of by patching the same line as in #21812 and adding the option --format=legacy.

[dimpase]

was the description removed on purpose, or by oversight?

[jdemeyer]

Replying to dimpase:

was the description removed on purpose, or by oversight?

On purpose since it was no longer relevant.

[charpent]

Replying to thansen:

The deprecation warnings can be gotten rid of by patching the same line as in #21812 and adding the option --format=legacy.

I'm afraid that our current policy of "don't upgrade until absolutely necessary", while implementing a well-founded unease with novelty for novelty's sake, leads us to paint ourselves in unmaintainable corners.

In the present case, pip is now a cornerstone of python infrastructure. Trying to maintain its old format exposes us to the risk of more and more Sage-specific pip-related patches, aggravating its maintenance burden. While not as serious as the python2-python3 divergence, that, IMHO, we considered way too late, the analogy is here.

I'd consider what is currently a booboo as an incentive to *fix* the problem, not to work around it.

Of course, you can also consider that pip, used to add new packages, is not useful for "a majority" of Sage users. You will have as much trouble convincing me that you have tryng to convince me that SSL support can be optional (you didn't succeed yet).

Culd you please consider this bug as a serious warning about our future maintenance burden ?

[charpent]

Replying to jdemeyer:

Replying to dimpase:

was the description removed on purpose, or by oversight?

On purpose since it was no longer relevant.

In my not so humble opinion, this description is *still* relevant. Removing it is a bit papering up a minor problem, leaving it time to become a major one...

I'd rather restore the original description (with your comments if you think necessary...).

[jdemeyer]

Replying to charpent:

In my not so humble opinion, this description is *still* relevant. Removing it is a bit papering up a minor problem, leaving it time to become a major one...

The original description claimed that there were problems with #21812. That ticket is now merged without the claimed problem appearing. So that claim was simply wrong (as I already pointed out on sage-devel and in 3).

This has nothing to do with being in favour or against this ticket. I just don't want factually incorrect ticket descriptions.

[chapoton]

New commits:

​3e304ef

branch for upgrading to pip 9.0.1

[jdemeyer]

Duplicate of #23615.