Skip to content
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

Bump PyYaml and ops libraries verion #237

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

dmitry-ratushnyy
Copy link
Contributor

@dmitry-ratushnyy dmitry-ratushnyy commented Aug 18, 2023

Issue

Building of charm is failed with juju 3.1.5 which is installed by default with snap

PyYaml pinned to version 6.0.0 causes issues with building charm due to incompatibility with cython 3.

Solution

Bump PyYaml and ops library versions

@dmitry-ratushnyy dmitry-ratushnyy changed the title Bump PyYaml version from '==6.0.0' to '>6.0.0' [WIP]Bump PyYaml version from '==6.0.0' to '>6.0.0' Aug 18, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@MiaAltieri MiaAltieri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The conflict is caused by:
The user requested pyyaml>6.0
juju 2.9.38.1 depends on pyyaml<=6.0 and >=5.1.2

To fix this you could try to:

  1. loosen the range of package versions you've specified
  2. remove package versions to allow pip attempt to solve the dependency conflict

@delgod
Copy link
Member

delgod commented Sep 5, 2023

should be solved via poetry

@delgod delgod closed this Sep 5, 2023
@dmitry-ratushnyy dmitry-ratushnyy changed the title [WIP]Bump PyYaml version from '==6.0.0' to '>6.0.0' Bump PyYaml and ops libraries verion Sep 5, 2023
@dmitry-ratushnyy dmitry-ratushnyy force-pushed the dmitry.ratushnyy/bump_pyyaml_version branch from afc91ce to b7e5916 Compare September 5, 2023 14:40
Copy link
Contributor

@MiaAltieri MiaAltieri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe we have the juju version hardcoded in the tests to 2.9.38.1 so I think these changes will introduce conflicts with the version of juju we are testing on, it might be necessary to bump that version

@dmitry-ratushnyy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this PR in favour of #240

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants