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.

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

Protobuf 2.6.0 pip dependency conflict #36

Closed
psypuff opened this issue Sep 30, 2014 · 18 comments
Closed

Protobuf 2.6.0 pip dependency conflict #36

psypuff opened this issue Sep 30, 2014 · 18 comments

Comments

@psypuff
Copy link

psypuff commented Sep 30, 2014

Since google-apputils was added as a dependency on 2.6.0 we have dependency conflict on python-dateutil, apparently google-apputils needs 'python-dateutil>=1.4,<2' but the latest public version is 2.2 which is needed and installed by other packages.

Current workaround is to downgrade python-dateutil to 1.5 but it'll probably break something sooner or later, any chance to loose a bit the requirements?

Thanks

@dhermes
Copy link

dhermes commented Oct 3, 2014

FYI this is causing problems for gcloud-python, see
googleapis/google-cloud-python#215

@dhermes
Copy link

dhermes commented Oct 3, 2014

@craigcitro FYI I saw you were a maintainer of google-apputils.

Do you know the reason for strange the dateutil requirement in setup.py:

REQUIRE = [
    "python-dateutil>=1.4,<2",
    "python-gflags>=1.4",
    "pytz>=2010",
    ]

It is causing some "upstream" problems in this library.

@craigcitro
Copy link
Contributor

yes -- this is an unfortunate issue around being able to test with our internal versions of python-dateutil. there's a thread going, but no conclusion yet.

does anyone happen to know how big the API difference is between version 1.4 and 2+ of python-dateutil?

@dhermes
Copy link

dhermes commented Oct 3, 2014

Code docs list contact info for Gustavo Niemeyer.

@niemeyer would you be able to weigh in on the API difference between dateutil 1.4 and 2+?

UPDATE: I confirmed that Gustavo has handed off maintenance.

Code is hosted on LaunchPad.

Other member and PyPI owner is Tomi Pievilaeinen who has contact info on ActiveState.

@craigcitro
Copy link
Contributor

OK, looking at our code using dateutil, i think we can just drop it.

let me at least ping the other thread, see if anyone has time to look at this.

@dhermes
Copy link

dhermes commented Oct 3, 2014

Will it build? If it BUILDs, everyone is happy 👍

@craigcitro
Copy link
Contributor

i think i'll be able to get a fix out soon, stay tuned.

@dhermes
Copy link

dhermes commented Oct 4, 2014

w00t. Thanks for pushing through this.

@psypuff
Copy link
Author

psypuff commented Oct 5, 2014

Yay, thanks! 👍

@georgevreilly
Copy link

I had to downgrade my Brew installation of protoc to 2.5 because of this implicit dependency on an ancient version of python-dateutil. We're also using Boto, which requires a modern version of dateutil.

Since the only reason that google-apputils is being used is to get basetest, which is used only in test code, can the requirement be extracted from setup.py and put into test-requirements.txt?

@dhermes
Copy link

dhermes commented Oct 10, 2014

@craigcitro
Copy link
Contributor

... and we're fixed! i just pushed a new version of google-apputils, we should be up and running.

@dhermes
Copy link

dhermes commented Oct 15, 2014

w00t! I assume you're referring to: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/google-apputils/0.4.1

How does the Ubuntu / debian source process work?

@craigcitro
Copy link
Contributor

yep, just pushed the new release, and now this package can install with no trouble.

i have no idea who/what controls the deb creation.

@xfxyjwf
Copy link
Contributor

xfxyjwf commented Oct 15, 2014

Thanks very much, Craig!

@xfxyjwf xfxyjwf closed this as completed Oct 15, 2014
@edmonds
Copy link
Contributor

edmonds commented Oct 16, 2014

@craigcitro The Debian packaging for google-apputils-python is here: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/cloud/google-apputils-python.git. I've just updated it for 0.4.1 and uploaded it to the Debian archive.

@craigcitro
Copy link
Contributor

wooooo thanks @edmonds !

@psypuff
Copy link
Author

psypuff commented Oct 20, 2014

Thanks Craig! 😄

TeBoring pushed a commit to TeBoring/protobuf that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2019
Decoder fix: skipped data at end of submessage.
yordis pushed a commit to yordis/protobuf that referenced this issue Dec 8, 2024
…ffers#36)

Exclude 1.4 and 1.5 w/ OTP 21.0 since TravisCI doesn't support this (Hex does
not supply such combination yet?)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants