Project

General

Profile

Bug #9368

Warning during deployment to openstack cloud

Added by Vadim Mutilin about 1 month ago. Updated about 1 month ago.

Status:
Rejected
Priority:
High
Assignee:
-
Category:
Deployment
Target version:
Start date:
11/07/2018
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Detected in build:
svn
Platform:
Published in build:

Description

2018-11-07 18:08:44 (ssh.py:116) INFO> Executed command STDERR:
/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/psycopg2/__init__.py:144: UserWarning: The psycopg2 wheel package will be renamed from release 2.8; in order to keep installing from binary please use "pip install psycopg2-binary" instead. For details see: <http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/install.html#binary-install-from-pypi>.
  """)

History

#1 Updated by Evgeny Novikov about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from New to Rejected

This is just a warning. We should not take care about it. I hope that soon it will disappear.

#2 Updated by Ilja Zakharov about 1 month ago

I whould also propse to fix this, since it is a one-line fix in deployment configuration (change name of the package).

#3 Updated by Evgeny Novikov about 1 month ago

I think that you both did not investigate reasons of this warning, but propose to suppress it.

#4 Updated by Ilja Zakharov about 1 month ago

Nope, you are wrong. The reason is usage of a deprecated package instead of a new one. Locally I use the correct one and do not have this warning.

#5 Updated by Evgeny Novikov about 1 month ago

Ilja Zakharov wrote:

Nope, you are wrong. The reason is usage of a deprecated package instead of a new one. Locally I use the correct one and do not have this warning.

Did you read http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/install.html#binary-install-from-pypi? Perhaps I mistake but it says that nobody should use the binary package in production. The only disadvantage for us is that soon we may need to add some build time dependencies if we already do not have them.

#6 Updated by Ilja Zakharov about 1 month ago

The document says this in the following context:

If you are the maintainer of a publish package depending on psycopg2 you shouldn’t use psycopg2-binary as a module dependency. For production use you are advised to use the source distribution.

We defnietly not maintain any public pip packages that rely upon psycopg, however, it is not clear about other cases. The latest version of psycopg is 2.8, so the next version according to the warning will be renamed. Possible solution of course is to wait for the next version and solve the problem later.

On my machine I do not experience any problems using the binary version.

#7 Updated by Evgeny Novikov about 1 month ago

Ilja Zakharov wrote:

The document says this in the following context:

If you are the maintainer of a publish package depending on psycopg2 you shouldn’t use psycopg2-binary as a module dependency. For production use you are advised to use the source distribution.

We defnietly not maintain any public pip packages that rely upon psycopg, however, it is not clear about other cases. The latest version of psycopg is 2.8, so the next version according to the warning will be renamed. Possible solution of course is to wait for the next version and solve the problem later.

As far as I understand by using "psycopg2" without suffix "-binary" we will just build it from sources (it seems that we already may do this, but not in all cases) - the package will not be renamed. For more details you should read https://pypi.org/project/psycopg2/.

On my machine I do not experience any problems using the binary version.

This will likely be the case in all our use cases.

Also available in: Atom PDF