<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com" target="_blank">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Tuesday, 28 May 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">After doing a new clone, in F18 I get the following error:<div> <br></div><div><div>* Building gwebsockets</div><div> dist = best[req.key] = env.best_match(req, self, installer)</div><div> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 825, in best_match</div> <div> return self.obtain(req, installer) # try and download/install</div><div> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 837, in obtain</div><div> return installer(requirement)</div> <div> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 294, in fetch_build_egg</div><div> return cmd.easy_install(req)</div><div> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/setuptools/command/easy_install.py", line 592, in easy_install</div> <div> raise DistutilsError(msg)</div><div>distutils.errors.DistutilsError: Could not find suitable distribution for Requirement.parse('zope.interface>=3.6.0')</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> <br></div></div><div>Setuptools is doing an horrible job at reporting the error there, but I suspect this is a transient issue, does it work if you retry now? At least I've seen similar traces before that was just temporary network errors...</div> </blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Grr..., now is working, then, probably temporary. Like you say, no clue about the reason in the message. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Zope? really? :)</div></div> </blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is dragged in by autobahn, which is a websocket client we are using for gwebsockets tests. If you want to write a gwebsockets client to avoid the dependency feel free, I take patches :)</div> <div class="im"> <div> </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>May be you can use: <a href="https://pypi.python.org/pypi/websocket-client/0.7.0">https://pypi.python.org/pypi/websocket-client/0.7.0</a></div><div style>I have tested it and works ok.</div> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> <div>The last time I tried, sugar-build installed ruby.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>It is required to build webkitgtk, not much we can do about that other than sending them patches to avoid the dep if possible at all.</div> <div class="im"> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I think we should be more careful about our dependencies, in fact, in the past, adding dependencies was publicly discussed</div> </div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>It doesn't make much sense to discuss any single sub dependency dragged in by stuff we obviously need like webkit.</div><div><br></div><div>The autobahn dependency in gwebsockets could have be discussed perhaps. As I said the alternative would be to write a gwebsockets client, but in my opinion it's not worth the effort just to avoid this build time dependency. Especially since we are not going to need a client outside the tests.</div> <div class="im"> <div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"> <div>I have the following proposals:</div><div>* Review the dependencies. Have more and more dependencies is a recipe to a nightmare.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>If we add new stuff, like a new toolkit based on a completely different software stack, and never remove old stuff, like gtk2 support, we are doomed to increase our dependencies. I don't think there is a way around that.</div> <div><br></div><div>Of course I agree that we should be careful. But sometimes it's better to depend on something than to write your own code which you then need to maintain. I think that's the case for the autobahn dependency in gwebsockets for example.</div> <div class="im"> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>* Split the compilation, one part to compile sugar and another to compile sugar-web,</div> <div>sugar-web is more unstable, and have a lot of issues.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>This would add more maintenance, buildbot etc work that I personally don't have time to do. I welcome anyone to jump in and maintain a sugar-without-html build if it is considered necessary.</div> <div><br></div><div>IMO we decided that HTML activities was the main goal for the release and it would good if it was more of a collective effort, including testing and fixing the build. Right now is mostly just me and Manuel... Most other people seems to be a<span></span>nnoyed by the build issues rather than trying to participate. If we wanted to have only a small part of the team work on it and the rest not being bothered by the changes, it would have been better to work on a branch until stuff was more stable.</div> </blockquote><div><br></div><div style>It's true only you and manuq are working in the core, but there are different roles in the community,</div><div style>and always are more people working on activities than in sugar itself.</div> <div style>I think we thought the web stuff will be a thin layer and not add a monster like webkit</div><div style>to the stuff we need compile.</div><div> </div><div style>Don't take this as a attack. I value the work you do. But you need understand sugar-build now is a </div> <div style>central piece in our stack, and we need use it in different ways.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Gonzalo</div></div></div></div>