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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Support python 3.12 #1012

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
+1 −1
Closed

Support python 3.12 #1012

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion pyproject.toml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -9,5 +9,5 @@ requires = [
"numpy>=2.0.0; python_version>='3.9'",
"pip",
"scikit-build>=0.14.0",
"setuptools==59.2.0",
"setuptools>=59.2.0",
Copy link

@Avasam Avasam Aug 1, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I normally wouldn't recommend pinning setuptools on an upperbound unless you have an explicit reason, but v71 changed how it vendors its dependencies in a major way. https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/history.html#v71-0-0
Where it'll prefer already installed deps over its vendors. This can cause issues if the environment has an older version of a dep installed (which wasn't problematic before for setuptools, as it'd use it's own vendor anyway).

Note that running pip install setuptools[core] would install the necessary dependencies along with setuptools.

Given the various distributions and dockerization of opencv-python, it might be warranted to progressively relax this pin by first going to:

Suggested change
"setuptools>=59.2.0",
"setuptools>=59.2.0,<71.0.0",

Leaving this to the maintainers whether that's a concern 😄

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm reticent to introduce an upper-bound with neither any observed problems nor a plan to fix any anticipated problems. But I'm happy to commit the suggestion if maintainers agree it's prudent.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah same, figured I'd at least let it be known.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bryankaplan Done, thank you

]
Loading