On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 03:12:19PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Wed, 2018-11-14 at 13:12 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 01:43:10PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > flake8 wants 'pyflakes<1.7.0,>=1.5.0', but all FreeBSD > > > releases ship pyflakes 2.0.0 these days. > > > > This rationale doesn't make sense given that I see Fedora has > > flake8 which is happily using pyflakes 2.0.0 > > > > # rpm -q python3-flake8 python3-pyflakes > > python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch > > python3-pyflakes-2.0.0-7.fc29.noarch > > > > Something else must be happening on FreeBSD. > > Looks like Fedora is carrying a patch[1] that introduces pyflakes > 2.0.0 compatibility, which has been backported from flake8 3.6.0. > I don't expect FreeBSD will backport the patch, they're probably > going to jump straight to the newer upstream release instead. > > So we can either merge this patch to make the failures go away for > the time being and re-introduce the job once flake8 3.6.0 is > available in FreeBSD, or endure the failure a bit longer and just > wait for it to go away on its own. In the latter case, re-adding > FreeBSD -CURRENT as a target for the job would make as well. > > Let me know which one of the two solutions you prefer. I'm fine taking this patch for now, if you just clarify the commit message a little about the problem being flake8 <= 3.5.0 > > > [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flake8/blob/f29/f/python-flake8-3.5.0-pyflakes-2.0.0.patch Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
