Hello Lars, Am Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 07:08:44PM +0100 schrieb Lars-Dominik Braun: > sorry, I can’t quite keep up with the Python issues on core-updates > right now :(
thanks for your reply, this is very helpful, as I am more than insecure when it comes to python packaging! > > Yet another python failure: python-pathlib > this is a backport of Python’s built-in pathlib library. It should be > dropped as a dependency for all of these packages, since our Python is >= > 3.4 – the version pathlib was introduced into the standard library. And > then drop the package entirely. Good, thanks for the info. What generally makes me hesitant is that we are down to manual dependency resolution without having a good overview: I need python-json-spec, which so far had pathlib as an input. When I drop pathlib, the package nevertheless fails to build due to its own Collection.abc issue. So I tried to update it to the latest version. This version requires python-importlib-metadata; not its latest version 6, but something at least 5 and less than 6. We were still at 4.something. So I have just updated it to 5.2.0, the latest version 5 from last December. This gives me python-json-spec, so I am one step closer to calibre, which I am interested in. But python-importlib-metadata has 892 dependents (among which interesting looking ones, such as freecad and gnome-terminal). I wonder whether I am not breaking 891 dependents by enabling, maybe, the one that I am interested in. Anyway, I am operating from the assumption that updating to a newer version is always good, and that packages that do not build anymore will have to be updated or patched themselves. Hopefully this is a reasonable assumption in the python world... If not, please feel free to revert my changes and to propose a different solution. Andreas