tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25
2
0
Issues 1.1k Wiki

automatically generate binary .egg's of pycryptopp for all of our Supported Platforms #1094

New Issue
Closed
opened 2010-06-21 22:16:07 +00:00 by zooko · 3 comments
zooko commented 2010-06-21 22:16:07 +00:00
Copy Link

zeromus's #1093 (win32 build hell) was at least partly if not mostly caused by the following problem:

  1. zeromus followed the instructions on quickstart.html to use Python 2.5
  2. the build script saw from source:_auto_deps.py that Tahoe-LAFS requires pycryptopp, so it starting looking for where to get pycryptopp to satisfy this dependency
  3. it looked in the SUMO tarball that zeromus had installed, which has the same contents as http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-deps-v16/ , and saw therein "pycryptopp-0.5.19.tar.bz2". It also looked on the Python Package Index: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pycryptopp and saw that pycryptopp v0.5.19 is the current version of pycryptopp.
  4. it then looked for binary eggs of pycryptopp v0.5.19 to install. From source:_auto_dep.py's find_links it could see that the following directory was a valid place to get dependencies: http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-dep-eggs/ . At the time, that directory contained the following packages of pycryptopp:
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-win32.egg	10-Jan-2010 21:31	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.6-linux-x86_64.egg	10-Jan-2010 21:35	3.0M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-linux-armv5tel.egg	10-Jan-2010 21:47	554K	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17-py2.5-macosx-10.5-i386.egg	06-Feb-2010 14:11	1.7M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-macosx-10.3-i386.egg	07-Feb-2010 10:53	2.5M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-macosx-10.4-i386.egg	07-Feb-2010 10:53	2.5M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-macosx-10.5-i386.egg	07-Feb-2010 10:53	2.5M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-macosx-10.6-i386.egg	07-Feb-2010 10:53	2.5M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.6-macosx-10.6-universal.egg	03-Mar-2010 22:50	2.6M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17.360334-py2.6-win-amd64.egg	01-May-2010 22:14	1.0M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.6-win32.egg	06-May-2010 14:11	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r685-py2.6-win32.egg	12-May-2010 05:38	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r686-py2.6-win32.egg	15-May-2010 18:40	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r687-py2.6-win32.egg	15-May-2010 18:48	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r688-py2.6-win32.egg	15-May-2010 19:40	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r689-py2.6-win32.egg	15-May-2010 19:43	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r693-py2.6-win32.egg	03-Jun-2010 23:17	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.18_r701-py2.6-win32.egg	03-Jun-2010 23:53	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.19-py2.6-win32.egg	04-Jun-2010 00:06	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.19_r704-py2.6-win32.egg	06-Jun-2010 23:58	1.1M	 
	pycryptopp-0.5.19_r704-py2.6-win-amd64.egg	08-Jun-2010 07:37	602K

Now it can't use any binary eggs that aren't for win32 or that aren't for Python 2.5, so that leaves:

	pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-win32.egg	10-Jan-2010 21:31	1.1M

But, it will prefer to use a newer release from source tarball over using an older release from a binary egg! Since that py2.5-win32.egg there is pycryptopp v0.5.17, and since it can get pycryptopp v0.5.19 in source tarball form, it will go for the latter.

Therefore, it went ahead and used the pycryptopp v0.5.19 source tarball from the SUMO tarball and tried to compile it.

It then failed to compile it with this error:

error: Setup script exited with error: Don't know how to compile cryptopp\x64dll.asm

I believe that failure is due to http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/pycryptopp/ticket/37.

However, that failure to build is not the subject of this ticket. The subject of this ticket is: why didn't the build system find a binary egg of pycryptopp for the current platform and use that?

Ok, why does http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-dep-eggs have new binary eggs of pycryptopp v0.5.19 for py2.6-win32 and for py2.6-win-amd64.egg but not for py2.5-win32? The answer is easy to see by looking at the pycryptopp buildbot page. There is a buildslave for py2.6-win32 (operated by FreeStorm) and a buildslave for py2.6-win-amd64 (operated by Dcoder/sneves). There is no buildslave for py2.5-win32. That means that py2.5-win32 is not a Supported Platform!

So to close this ticket, either change the docs to specify that you should use Python 2.6 and if you use any other version of Python then you are on your own, or else get someone to volunteer a py2.5-win32 buildslave to generate pycryptopp binary eggs.

zeromus's #1093 (win32 build hell) was at least partly if not mostly caused by the following problem: 1. zeromus followed the instructions on [quickstart.html](http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/trunk/docs/quickstart.html) to use Python 2.5 2. the build script saw from source:_auto_deps.py that Tahoe-LAFS requires pycryptopp, so it starting looking for where to get pycryptopp to satisfy this dependency 3. it looked in the SUMO tarball that zeromus had installed, which has the same contents as <http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-deps-v16/> , and saw therein "pycryptopp-0.5.19.tar.bz2". It also looked on the Python Package Index: <http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pycryptopp> and saw that pycryptopp v0.5.19 is the current version of pycryptopp. 4. it then looked for binary eggs of pycryptopp v0.5.19 to install. From source:_auto_dep.py's `find_links` it could see that the following directory was a valid place to get dependencies: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-dep-eggs/> . At the time, that directory contained the following packages of pycryptopp: ``` pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-win32.egg 10-Jan-2010 21:31 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.6-linux-x86_64.egg 10-Jan-2010 21:35 3.0M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-linux-armv5tel.egg 10-Jan-2010 21:47 554K pycryptopp-0.5.17-py2.5-macosx-10.5-i386.egg 06-Feb-2010 14:11 1.7M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-macosx-10.3-i386.egg 07-Feb-2010 10:53 2.5M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-macosx-10.4-i386.egg 07-Feb-2010 10:53 2.5M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-macosx-10.5-i386.egg 07-Feb-2010 10:53 2.5M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-macosx-10.6-i386.egg 07-Feb-2010 10:53 2.5M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.6-macosx-10.6-universal.egg 03-Mar-2010 22:50 2.6M pycryptopp-0.5.17.360334-py2.6-win-amd64.egg 01-May-2010 22:14 1.0M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.6-win32.egg 06-May-2010 14:11 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r685-py2.6-win32.egg 12-May-2010 05:38 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r686-py2.6-win32.egg 15-May-2010 18:40 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r687-py2.6-win32.egg 15-May-2010 18:48 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r688-py2.6-win32.egg 15-May-2010 19:40 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r689-py2.6-win32.egg 15-May-2010 19:43 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.17_r693-py2.6-win32.egg 03-Jun-2010 23:17 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.18_r701-py2.6-win32.egg 03-Jun-2010 23:53 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.19-py2.6-win32.egg 04-Jun-2010 00:06 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.19_r704-py2.6-win32.egg 06-Jun-2010 23:58 1.1M pycryptopp-0.5.19_r704-py2.6-win-amd64.egg 08-Jun-2010 07:37 602K ``` Now it can't use any binary eggs that aren't for win32 or that aren't for Python 2.5, so that leaves: ``` pycryptopp-0.5.17_r683-py2.5-win32.egg 10-Jan-2010 21:31 1.1M ``` But, it will prefer to use a newer release from source tarball over using an older release from a binary egg! Since that py2.5-win32.egg there is pycryptopp v0.5.17, and since it can get pycryptopp v0.5.19 in source tarball form, it will go for the latter. Therefore, it went ahead and used the pycryptopp v0.5.19 source tarball from the SUMO tarball and tried to compile it. It then failed to compile it with this error: ``` error: Setup script exited with error: Don't know how to compile cryptopp\x64dll.asm ``` I believe that failure is due to <http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/pycryptopp/ticket/37>. However, that failure to build is *not* the subject of this ticket. The subject of *this* ticket is: why didn't the build system find a binary egg of pycryptopp for the current platform and use that? Ok, why does <http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-dep-eggs> have new binary eggs of pycryptopp v0.5.19 for py2.6-win32 and for py2.6-win-amd64.egg but not for py2.5-win32? The answer is easy to see by looking at [the pycryptopp buildbot page](http://tahoe-lafs.org/buildbot-pycryptopp/waterfall). There is a buildslave for py2.6-win32 (operated by FreeStorm) and a buildslave for py2.6-win-amd64 (operated by Dcoder/sneves). There is no buildslave for py2.5-win32. That means that py2.5-win32 is not a Supported Platform! So to close this ticket, either change the docs to specify that you should use Python 2.6 and if you use any other version of Python then you are on your own, or else get someone to volunteer a py2.5-win32 buildslave to generate pycryptopp binary eggs.
zooko added the
packaging
major
defect
1.7.0
 labels 2010-06-21 22:16:07 +00:00
zooko added this to the 1.7.1 milestone 2010-06-21 22:16:07 +00:00
davidsarah commented 2010-06-22 22:16:45 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Replying to zooko:

zeromus's #1093 (win32 build hell) was at least partly if not mostly caused by the following problem:

  1. zeromus followed the instructions on quickstart.html to use Python 2.5
    [...]
    Ok, why does http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-dep-eggs have new binary eggs of pycryptopp v0.5.19 for py2.6-win32 and for py2.6-win-amd64.egg but not for py2.5-win32? The answer is easy to see by looking at the pycryptopp buildbot page. There is a buildslave for py2.6-win32 (operated by FreeStorm) and a buildslave for py2.6-win-amd64 (operated by Dcoder/sneves). There is no buildslave for py2.5-win32. That means that py2.5-win32 is not a Supported Platform!

So to close this ticket, either change the docs to specify that you should use Python 2.6 and if you use any other version of Python then you are on your own, or else get someone to volunteer a py2.5-win32 buildslave to generate pycryptopp binary eggs.

If I understand correctly, the original reason for recommending Python 2.5 on Windows, was that mingw cannot compile extension modules for Python 2.6 on Windows; that requires a Microsoft compiler. Since we have py2.6-win32 and py2.6-win32-amd64 buildslaves with Microsoft compilers, this is presumably less of an issue now (at least for users who do not want to compile everything from scratch, but those are not the audience quickstart.html is targeted at).

Replying to [zooko](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/6156): > zeromus's #1093 (win32 build hell) was at least partly if not mostly caused by the following problem: > > 1. zeromus followed the instructions on [quickstart.html](http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/trunk/docs/quickstart.html) to use Python 2.5 [...] > Ok, why does <http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-dep-eggs> have new binary eggs of pycryptopp v0.5.19 for py2.6-win32 and for py2.6-win-amd64.egg but not for py2.5-win32? The answer is easy to see by looking at [the pycryptopp buildbot page](http://tahoe-lafs.org/buildbot-pycryptopp/waterfall). There is a buildslave for py2.6-win32 (operated by FreeStorm) and a buildslave for py2.6-win-amd64 (operated by Dcoder/sneves). There is no buildslave for py2.5-win32. That means that py2.5-win32 is not a Supported Platform! > > So to close this ticket, either change the docs to specify that you should use Python 2.6 and if you use any other version of Python then you are on your own, or else get someone to volunteer a py2.5-win32 buildslave to generate pycryptopp binary eggs. If I understand correctly, the original reason for recommending Python 2.5 on Windows, was that mingw cannot compile extension modules for Python 2.6 on Windows; that requires a Microsoft compiler. Since we have py2.6-win32 and py2.6-win32-amd64 buildslaves with Microsoft compilers, this is presumably less of an issue now (at least for users who do not want to compile everything from scratch, but those are not the audience quickstart.html is targeted at).
davidsarah commented 2010-07-18 02:42:17 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

changeset:5ade4f82e0ee38cf updated quickstart.html to recommend use of Python 2.6 on Windows. Should we consider this fixed?

changeset:5ade4f82e0ee38cf updated quickstart.html to recommend use of Python 2.6 on Windows. Should we consider this fixed?
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.7.1 to soon 2010-07-18 02:44:30 +00:00
zooko commented 2010-10-31 06:51:32 +00:00
Author
Copy Link

Okay we have automatic generation of pycryptopp bdist_eggs on our buildbot. You can see its logs here:

http://tahoe-lafs.org/buildbot-pycryptopp/waterfall

and the resulting .egg's are hosted here: http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-dep-eggs/

We can close this ticket, about automating this process, but we're going to open a new ticket about visualizing which platforms and python versions have which versions of which dependencies available (i.e. by writing a script that generates a .rst table)...

That visualization would then inform us about which versions of Python we can recommend on which platforms...

Okay we have automatic generation of pycryptopp bdist_eggs on our buildbot. You can see its logs here: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/buildbot-pycryptopp/waterfall> and the resulting .egg's are hosted here: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/deps/tahoe-dep-eggs/> We can close this ticket, about automating this process, but we're going to open a new ticket about visualizing which platforms and python versions have which versions of which dependencies available (i.e. by writing a script that generates a .rst table)... That visualization would then inform us about which versions of Python we can recommend on which platforms...
zooko added the
fixed
 label 2010-10-31 06:51:32 +00:00
zooko closed this issue 2010-10-31 06:51:32 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels   
0.2.0

   
0.3.0

   
0.4.0

   
0.5.0

   
0.5.1

   
0.6.0

   
0.6.1

   
0.7.0

   
0.8.0

   
0.9.0

   
1.0.0

   
1.1.0

   
1.10.0

   
1.10.1

   
1.10.2

   
1.10a2

   
1.11.0

   
1.12.0

   
1.12.1

   
1.13.0

   
1.14.0

   
1.15.0

   
1.15.1

   
1.2.0

   
1.3.0

   
1.4.1

   
1.5.0

   
1.6.0

   
1.6.1

   
1.7.0

   
1.7.1

   
1.7β

   
1.8.0

   
1.8.1

   
1.8.2

   
1.8.3

   
1.8β

   
1.9.0

   
1.9.0-s3branch

   
1.9.0a1

   
1.9.0a2

   
1.9.0b1

   
1.9.1

   
1.9.2

   
1.9.2a1

   
LeastAuthority.com automation

   
blocker

   
cannot reproduce

   
cloud-branch

   
code

catch-all for anything that can be fixed by writing code but isn't classified better

  
code-dirnodes

anything involving tahoe directories

  
code-encoding

immutable-file encoding format/layout, cap format, encoding/decoding algorithms

  
code-frontend

general frontend things: new user-facing interfaces, FTP/SFTP servers, FUSE-like interfaces

  
code-frontend-cli

CLI tools

  
code-frontend-ftp-sftp

   
code-frontend-magic-folder

   
code-frontend-web

webapi interfaces, user-facing "WUI" interfaces

  
code-mutable

anything involving mutable files: encoding/decoding, share format

  
code-network

Introducer, locating storage servers, establishing/maintaining connections to them

  
code-nodeadmin

node startup/shutdown, tools to create nodes, logging tools, management/monitoring tools, manhole, disk-space-limiting tools

  
code-peerselection

server selection/sorting algorithm, rebalancing code, allocation policy, swarming-download

  
code-storage

storage-server implementation, share-storage directory layout, client-to-server share transfer protocol

  
contrib

problems with non-core things that live in the source:contrib/ directory

  
critical

   
defect

   
dev-infrastructure

things that help us build Tahoe: buildbot, automated speed/memory/code-coverage tests and results-displayers, IRC channels, mailing lists, this Trac instance

  
documentation

docs items. Also use 'docs' keyword on tickets in more specific components.

  
duplicate

   
enhancement

   
fixed

   
invalid

   
major

   
minor

   
n/a

   
normal

   
operational

things involved in running a tahoe grid, external tools to monitor/maintain a grid (like "nodeadmin" but larger-scale). Was also used for issues with the allmydata.com grid.

  
packaging

setup.py script, library dependencies, binary packages, licensing, installation instructions

  
somebody else's problem

   
supercritical

   
task

   
trivial

   
unknown

Uncategorized. All tickets default to this component until someone updates it.

  
was already fixed

   
website

things about the tahoe-lafs.org website (and sometimes this Trac instance, shared with 'dev-infrastructure')

  
wontfix

   
worksforme
No Label
0.2.0
0.3.0
0.4.0
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.7.0
0.8.0
0.9.0
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.10.0
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10a2
1.11.0
1.12.0
1.12.1
1.13.0
1.14.0
1.15.0
1.15.1
1.2.0
1.3.0
1.4.1
1.5.0
1.6.0
1.6.1
1.7.0
1.7.1
1.7β
1.8.0
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8β
1.9.0
1.9.0-s3branch
1.9.0a1
1.9.0a2
1.9.0b1
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.2a1
LeastAuthority.com automation
blocker
cannot reproduce
cloud-branch
code
code-dirnodes
code-encoding
code-frontend
code-frontend-cli
code-frontend-ftp-sftp
code-frontend-magic-folder
code-frontend-web
code-mutable
code-network
code-nodeadmin
code-peerselection
code-storage
contrib
critical
defect
dev-infrastructure
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
fixed
invalid
major
minor
n/a
normal
operational
packaging
somebody else's problem
supercritical
task
trivial
unknown
was already fixed
website
wontfix
worksforme
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
soon
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#1094
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?