Skip to content

Add upper bound for lxml #15608

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 6, 2023
Merged

Add upper bound for lxml #15608

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 6, 2023

Conversation

cdce8p
Copy link
Collaborator

@cdce8p cdce8p commented Jul 6, 2023

lxml==4.9.3 was released yesterday which caused the wheel builder to fail again.
https://github.com/mypyc/mypy_mypyc-wheels/actions/runs/5473072463/jobs/9966070811#step:4:6979

The lxml project decided to change the manylinux builds from manylinux2014 to manylinux_2_28. Thus to test our wheels we would need to compile lxml from source. Until will update to manylinux_2_28 ourselves, I think pinning lxml<4.9.3 is the best option.

https://pypi.org/project/lxml/4.9.2/#files
https://pypi.org/project/lxml/4.9.3/#files

@AlexWaygood
Copy link
Member

Should we also add an upper bound here?

mypy/setup.py

Line 231 in e0b159e

"reports": "lxml",

@cdce8p
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cdce8p commented Jul 6, 2023

Should we also add an upper bound here?

mypy/setup.py

Line 231 in e0b159e

"reports": "lxml",

Not sure. It's not impossible to build lxml from source. Just the docker image to build the mypy wheels isn't setup to do that. Furthermore if the target OS already ships with glibc>=2.28 the wheels for lxml can be installed as usual.

Also, we don't prevent anyone from installing mypy[reports] on windows. We just don't install it as test requirement there.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 6, 2023

According to mypy_primer, this change doesn't affect type check results on a corpus of open source code. ✅

Copy link
Collaborator

@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! I looked into whether it makes sense for us to use 2_28 too, and I'm feeling like nah

Copy link
Collaborator

@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! I looked into whether it makes sense for us to use 2_28 too, and I'm feeling like nah

@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja merged commit d65e1e7 into python:master Jul 6, 2023
@cdce8p cdce8p deleted the pin-lxml branch July 6, 2023 22:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants