Advantages ? If you're happy running the packaged variant, that'll continue to work for you.
Personally, I went with pip here for a variety of reasons: 1. it's trivial to back it all up 2. you can easily install parallel new versions to test before updating to 3. no battling rpm or yum or zypper or whatever unique frustrating installer each os has 4. lets you install and run the same way on every os almost 5. it doesn't pollute your os config at all, the venv is standalone and contained 6. the same mechanism (excluding systemd service) basically works if you later want to go docker For me, (1) and (2) are the things that are most important, but I used to run setup.py installs for over a decade anyway so it was a natural progression. Moving to the pip variant just makes both items much 'much' easier for me to handle. On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 12:52:31 PM UTC-8 Sean Ford wrote: > Curious what the recommended install method is, aside from personal > preference. Been running weewx on a Pi4 for a few years now and have been > waiting for official release to migrate it over to bookworm and a fresh > install, as there's a feature or fix or two I think I can take advantage > of. Since it won't technically be an upgrade (I'll attempt to migrate data > over after as I'm MySQL based), I can use apt or pip. > > Any advantages to either? This will be a dedicated pi just for weewx, if > that matters. > > Thanks for the guidance. > > > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 1:55:29 PM UTC-5 peterq...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Upgrade from 4.10 on Debian was no problem. The only thing to mention is >> the docs say to do apt install and I did it as apt update. >> >> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 10:15:34 AM UTC-8 matthew wall wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 8:51:09 PM UTC-5 vince wrote: >>> >>> Matthew - the issue now on f39 is 'your' old key from keys.html. Tom's >>> updated key imports ok. >>> >>> >>> short version: we need to use 4096 bits and SHA256 >>> >>> for the record (and the benefit of future me), the latest fedora rejects >>> tom's original key because it is SHA1, but it rejects my original key >>> because it is a 1024-bit asymmetric that was created in 2014. this will >>> probably be an issue on suse, since we sign the rpms for both redhat and >>> suse. it is easier to fix for debian, since we sign the repository index >>> for apt, not individual .deb files. we'll re-sign everything (again). >>> >>> for those of you who need to update signatures and things you have >>> signed, redhat has some details: >>> >>> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/updating-gpg-keys-for-fedora-and-rhel >>> >>> and this NIST 2019 publication explains why it is necessary: >>> >>> >>> https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-131Ar2.pdf >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weewx-user" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to weewx-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/90edba5b-7d26-4135-8148-80f61ea36c24n%40googlegroups.com.
