On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:17:36PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 03:56:31PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > > On 5/26/21 2:47 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > > > > build requisite for PyPI packages in the event that PyPI only has a > > > > sdist and not a bdist for a given dependency during installation. > > > > > > i.e. some packages are compiled during installation? > > > > Realized I didn't answer this directly. Yes, sometimes, depending on your > > platform or your python version or how new the python package is, it may not > > have a binary distribution available and will require compilation. > > > > But shouldn't this be known at this time, given that you're putting > the depedencies for one specific platform? I'd very very much like > to know which packages, for this specific platform, is triggering > a Python package build that has C-based extensions. > > And it would be even weired if such a package does *not* have C-based > extensions, and it's still requiring gcc. I would judge it as a > major setuptools design issue. > > > This comes up for Python 3.10 dependencies right now in particular. They do > > not have binary distributions because (I assume) 3.10 isn't finalized yet, > > so they haven't done a re-build. Or something like that. > > > > --js > > OK... but can you share which package available only in source is > requiring gcc? I'm not going to get a good night of sleep without > knowing that! :) > > Thanks, > - Cleber.
OK, so typed-ast is the culprit, and we can attest its requirement for a compiler here: https://github.com/python/typed_ast/blob/8eed936014f81a55a3e17310629c40c0203327c3/setup.py#L123 Now I can sleep in peace. :) - Cleber.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
