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

Fix fusesoc dependency breakage using python-requirements.txt #311

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 2, 2019
Merged

Fix fusesoc dependency breakage using python-requirements.txt #311

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 2, 2019

Conversation

asb
Copy link
Member

@asb asb commented Oct 2, 2019

In #302, azure-pipelines.yml was modified to ensure that attrs 19.1.0 is
installed. This is because 19.2.0 breaks FuseSoC via the simplesat
dependency (see enthought/sat-solver#270).
While the edits to azure-pipelines.yml fixed CI, users following the
getting started guide are still going to run into this issue. This
commit addresses the problem in an alternative way - by specifying the
version of attrs to use in python-requirements.txt.

Introducing a constraints.txt could have advantages, but that is more
intrusive and would require further doc updates. I feel that would be
overkill for a quick fix workaround that we hope to remove quite
rapidly.

This patch intends to be a quick fix - hopefully upstream simplesat will be fixed soon, or alternatively we can depend on a forked simplesat repo that contains the fix.

In #302, azure-pipelines.yml was modified to ensure that attrs 19.1.0 is
installed. This is because 19.2.0 breaks FuseSoC via the simplesat
dependency (see enthought/sat-solver#270).
While the edits to azure-pipelines.yml fixed CI, users following the
getting started guide are still going to run into this issue. This
commit addresses the problem in an alternative way - by specifying the
version of attrs to use in python-requirements.txt.

Introducing a constraints.txt could have advantages, but that is more
intrusive and would require further doc updates. I feel that would be
overkill for a quick fix workaround that we hope to remove quite
rapidly.
@imphil
Copy link
Contributor

imphil commented Oct 2, 2019

Thanks Alex, that's the right workaround for this.

@asb asb merged commit 72f8a8d into lowRISC:master Oct 2, 2019
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants