remove dependency on zbase32 and pyutil #2098

New Issue

tahoe-lafs · 2013-11-06T10:45:08Z

daira commented

2013-11-06 10:45:08 +00:00

These are weak dependencies in the sense that Tahoe-LAFS will work without them, but they have confused users and packagers (e.g. see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683331), and are potential sources of packaging bugs.

(This ticket conflicts with #47.)

These are weak dependencies in the sense that Tahoe-LAFS will work without them, but they have confused users and packagers (e.g. see <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683331>), and are potential sources of packaging bugs. (This ticket conflicts with #47.)

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2013-11-06 10:45:08 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the undecided milestone 2013-11-06 10:45:08 +00:00

daira commented

2014-03-15 15:48:54 +00:00

Alan Fairless at SpiderOak wrote:

FYI: I just noticed that newest zbase32 and pyutil are now mutually dependent on each other.

In order to make the toolchain builder happy, I'm first installing zbase32 1.1.3, then pyutil 1.9.7, then upgrade zbase32 to 1.3.5.

This isn't hurting anything over here -- just thought you might want to know.

Alan Fairless at SpiderOak wrote: > FYI: I just noticed that newest zbase32 and pyutil are now mutually dependent on each other. > > In order to make the toolchain builder happy, I'm first installing zbase32 1.1.3, then pyutil 1.9.7, then upgrade zbase32 to 1.3.5. > > This isn't hurting anything over here -- just thought you might want to know.

daira commented

2014-03-15 16:22:28 +00:00

Zooko: these dependencies are only via zfec, correct?

zooko was assigned by tahoe-lafs

2014-03-15 16:22:44 +00:00

zooko commented

2014-03-17 20:54:35 +00:00

Replying to daira:

Zooko: these dependencies are only via zfec, correct?

Correct.

Replying to [daira](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/2098#issuecomment-93787): > Zooko: these dependencies are only via zfec, correct? Correct.

daira commented

2014-03-17 21:20:03 +00:00

Hmm, https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/zfec gives an "Environment not found" error.

Hmm, <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/zfec> gives an "Environment not found" error.

zooko commented

2014-03-18 01:46:40 +00:00

Replying to daira:

Hmm, https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/zfec gives an "Environment not found" error.

Fixed.

Replying to [daira](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/2098#issuecomment-93790): > Hmm, <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/zfec> gives an "Environment not found" error. Fixed.

daira commented

2014-03-18 23:32:58 +00:00

Filed against zfec as https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/zfec/ticket/17 .

Filed against zfec as <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/zfec/ticket/17> .

exarkun commented

2020-01-17 15:05:45 +00:00

(https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/684)

GitHub <noreply@github.com> commented

2020-01-20 18:56:28 +00:00

In c164473/trunk:

Merge pull request #684 from tahoe-lafs/2098.remove-pyutil

Remove the direct pyutil dependency

Fixes: ticket:2098

In [c164473/trunk](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/commit/c1644734f10ccea7b4f83020757e75718242bd3a): ``` Merge pull request #684 from tahoe-lafs/2098.remove-pyutil Remove the direct pyutil dependency Fixes: ticket:2098 ```

tahoe-lafs added the

fixed

label 2020-01-20 18:56:28 +00:00

GitHub <noreply@github.com> closed this issue

2020-01-20 18:56:28 +00:00

itamarst commented

2020-07-13 18:37:59 +00:00

Note that I have reintroduced the dependency on pyutil as part of Python 3 port: there is enough duplicate code in pyutil that it's easier and nicer to just use the versions in pyutil. And since pyutil is indirect dependency anyway it wasn't adding any new dependencies.

Sign in to join this conversation.