Zhipemg Can you provide a method to generate an updated stx-centos-py2_stable-wheels.tar <http://mirror.starlingx.cengn.ca/mirror/starlingx/master/centos/stx-centos-py2_stable-wheels.tar> that I can implement on the CENGN side? In this way, we can have the tarball automatically update when new updates arrive. Scott \ On 2020-08-14 10:47 a.m., Liu, ZhipengS wrote:
Hi Frank and Don,
This is exactly a workaround for 4 python2 base images build after I discussed with Scott and Chant in mailing list.
Please see my attached email for more detail.
We cannot revert this patch directly as it will block ussuri openstack image build.
Chant and I also tried several solutions before, including
1. Try to find all python2 dependent wheels
Need add almost all old python2 wheels and fix conflict and dependency issues.
2. Try to find wheels support both python2 and python3
Some wheels could not support both.
3. Try to build these 4 images with python3 enabled
But these local packages have several local dependencies, which are all python2 based.
stx-nova-api-proxy (This one can be upgraded to py3)
stx-fm-rest-api
stx-keystone-api-proxy
stx-platformclients
Thanks!
Zhipeng
*From:* Miller, Frank <Frank.Miller@windriver.com> *Sent:* 2020年8月14日 4:07 *To:* Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>; Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com>; 'starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io' <starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>; Liu, ZhipengS <zhipengs.liu@intel.com> *Subject:* RE: [build]: py2 starlingx images locked to python modules from June build?
Zhipeng:
Please suggest a solution to this issue. One option is to back out the commit that introduced this issue. Can you identify a solution that doesn’t require you to back out your commit?
Frank
*From:* Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com <mailto:Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2020 10:06 PM *To:* Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com <mailto:Don.Penney@windriver.com>>; 'starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io' <starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>>; Liu, ZhipengS (zhipengs.liu@intel.com <mailto:zhipengs.liu@intel.com>) <zhipengs.liu@intel.com <mailto:zhipengs.liu@intel.com>>; Miller, Frank <Frank.Miller@windriver.com <mailto:Frank.Miller@windriver.com>> *Subject:* RE: [build]: py2 starlingx images locked to python modules from June build?
The launchpad is: https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1891416 <https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1891416>
*From:* Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com <mailto:Don.Penney@windriver.com>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:21 PM *To:* 'starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io' <starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>>; Liu, ZhipengS (zhipengs.liu@intel.com <mailto:zhipengs.liu@intel.com>) <zhipengs.liu@intel.com <mailto:zhipengs.liu@intel.com>>; Miller, Frank <Frank.Miller@windriver.com <mailto:Frank.Miller@windriver.com>> *Subject:* [Starlingx-discuss] [build]: py2 starlingx images locked to python modules from June build?
Hi folks,
It was discovered that the recent stx-platformclients image was not picking up recent changes made to the distributedcloud-client package (I believe a Launchpad will be raised shortly). Tracing back through the CENGN build logs, the problem appears to stem from the changes introduced by:
https://review.opendev.org/#/c/737456/11/build-tools/build-docker-images/doc...
So for specific images, including stx-platformclients, the image build is now using a reference to a presumably static tarball:
http://mirror.starlingx.cengn.ca/mirror/starlingx/master/centos/stx-centos-p...
Looking at the dir listing, we can see this tarball is dated June 23^rd :
http://mirror.starlingx.cengn.ca/mirror/starlingx/master/centos/
What this means is that these particular images will be using this locked tarball for installing python modules from the wheels (ie. The PIP_PACKAGES list)… which means that an image like stx-platformclients, which is getting various starlingx clients from wheels, will only ever have content from that June 23^rd build.
Was this the intended behavior? Instead of this “alternate wheels tarball”, shouldn’t we be generating a wheels tarball with both py2 and py3 support, as long as we’re building any py2 images?
Thanks,
Don.
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss