From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5404BC001DE for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE32B40482; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:38:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org EE32B40482 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MJDOTabcX5e3; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:38:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DCF640297; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:38:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 0DCF640297 Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D301BF2C4 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:38:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAE781FEC for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:38:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org CDAE781FEC X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Q72w4kC7tzF for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:38:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 79259819BC Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (relay5-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc4:8::225]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79259819BC for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:38:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F2381C0007; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:38:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:38:07 +0200 To: James Hilliard Message-ID: <20230711093807.41f21337@windsurf> In-Reply-To: References: <20230626080016.2182278-1-james.hilliard1@gmail.com> <20230710200350.5c72bcab@windsurf> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-GND-Sasl: thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com X-Mailman-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1689061089; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=s0Lfjzl8xgGccKqM81l1b5hNE0xv1/KMX76pG/pPbDE=; b=FpchH26quGhkdcv7VOze0ccimRaUL7tTgf8Fh3uP2EC1tkBsKd4G/FXmtL994Y9fTgHyz9 kqwP2e9BsmSt4e45Pc4eyEDCZg3m7M+u5VhzrgWNtUE17cm4uJl+vBCD+ueCqBpEh0j7XD uZnY6wZFbBOTMb/CdUEWW56HkDWTX4rEBa+Yx1BtZpU9l/hFMf2hk1FVNPiGviL1T78ngp 1K+ynz7htdSAvwV2y7rB6vZzWGo7iQZE0kHUW0zTSaPHFkyH+g81KW7C2sU0hV+VZ/vu9s Jk1rJ05rbL09Vr/j3eCoLcNK8JOWcFhQOOS9U3HuriuSBTS4d0kQd3HIItPU7g== X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=gm1 header.b=FpchH26q Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/python-msgpack: add host cython dependency X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot Reply-To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: "Wojciech M . Zabolotny" , Asaf Kahlon , buildroot@buildroot.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" Hello James, On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:17:55 -0600 James Hilliard wrote: > > Could you clarify if this is a current issue in the python-msgpack > > package that causes build failures, or if this is in preparation to > > move from setuptools to pep517 to build python-msgpack? > > It's a hard error when moving setuptools to pep517 but should be applied > regardless as it's needed for optimized extensions to build properly AFAIU > even when using legacy setup.py builds. So this patch is a prerequisite to applying https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20230626181531.2312002-5-james.hilliard1@gmail.com/ ? Why isn't it part of the same series, then? What is an "optimized extension" ? Could you clarify in which case python-msgpack wouldn't build/work, ourside of the PEP517 migration? > > If you want us to merge your patches faster, please help us: explain in > > the commit log the "WHY" you are doing the change. Your commit log > > fails to explain it, and therefore I don't have the context to > > understand the motivation of the change. > > I did mention in the commit log that this fixes an error which occurs when > using a pep517 frontend, which is what the patch doing the setuptools > pep517 migration changes, I'm not sure what context is missing here. The context that is missing is that this patch (changing python-msgpack) comes completely isolated from any other patch. If it had been in the series that ends with the "package/pkg-python.mk: migrate setuptools to pep517" patch, then it would have been clear: it's a pre-requisite to be able to do this move to PEP517. > We already use a pep517 frontend for other packages(i.e. packages using flit > infrastructure) so I was assuming familiarity with pep517 build > frontends/backends > here. The pep517 documentation has additional background on how this all works. > > https://peps.python.org/pep-0517/ > > This should be merged before the pep517 migration, I had only discovered > this issue after so I had sent it as a follow up instead of within the > initial pep517 setuptools migration series. No, what you should have done is resend an updated PEP517 setuptools migration series. This is what makes things clear for the maintainers/reviewers. It's totally fine to miss things in the first iteration of the series, but if you discover missing things, you should NOT send separate standalone patches. Instead you should send a new iteration of the series that includes the additional changes. Could you have a look at resending a complete series that include all your changes related to PEP517 setuptools migration, with a proper cover letter that describes the goal and the path taken to reach this goal? This would *tremendously* help the work of the maintainers/reviewers. Thanks a lot for all your work on the Python integration, it is really much appreciated! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot