Oh shoot, I never really learned the process..
Looking at the other email, I've already screwed this up on multiple
levels as I did not file a JIRA and committed to master instead of
release throttle.
How do we proceed in these cases?

Quoting Billy McFall (2017-10-05 17:08:50)
>    Klement,
>    Thank you for the path "drop python3 dependency" on master
>    ([1]https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/8584/), it will make ours lives downstream
>    much easier. I don't see the patch on stable/1710. Is there a plan to
>    cherry pick to 1710? (Sorry if it already there, just didn't see it.)
>    Thanks,
>    Billy McFall
>    On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Klement Sekera -X (ksekera - PANTHEON
>    TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <[2]ksek...@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>      Quoting Thomas F Herbert (2017-09-25 13:31:55)
>      >    On 09/25/2017 05:02 AM, Marco Varlese wrote:
>      >
>      >  Thanks for the thorough explanation Klement!Based on that, I think
>      (2) is still the better option for the current situation...
>      >
>      >  Tom, how would that sound to you?
>      >
>      >
>      >  "Klement Sekera -X (ksekera - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)"
>      [1]<[3]ksek...@cisco.com> 09/25/17 10:40 AM >>>
>      >
>      >  Quoting Marco Varlese (2017-09-25 10:26:50)
>      >
>      >  Hi Klement,
>      >
>      >
>      >  "Klement Sekera -X (ksekera - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)"
>      [2]<[4]ksek...@cisco.com> 09/25/17 9:33 AM >>>
>      >
>      >  At the time of creating this patch, epel was part of Makefile and
>      >  python34 was installed as dependency from that repo.
>      >  (see [3][5]https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/53/Makefile)
>      >  At later time, the epel stuff disappeared and with it also
>      >  the possibility to add python34 as a centos dependency - commit
>      >  bd8e242024fcc2daffa77bdd6e2da1296ace5c69. I remember pointing this
>      out
>      >  in discussion with Neale, but I didn't get a chance to test whether
>      >  centos works or not before it was merged.
>      >
>      >    That's OK. You would have had to test with a system without EPEL
>      Repo
>      >    enabled to discover this problem.
>      >
>      >    I should have paid closer attention when this patch was first
>      discussed in
>      >    May. Please add me as a reviewer for patches that have implications
>      for
>      >    RPM packaging and requirements.
>      >
>      >
>      >  I think it would be nice though to update other scripts too so to
>      have one single python version used across the board.
>      >  Currently, to build VPP on our distribution I need to require both
>      python and python3 packages since some python scripts use one rather
>      than the other.
>      >  Aligning python versions would make downstream consumption better I
>      believe.
>      >  Is this something which will/could be done?
>      >
>      >  See below.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >  As for the solution, I can think of 3 options:
>      >
>      >  1.) require python3 (which has been around for some ~9 years now)
>      >  2.) disable generation of the C (and C++) API if python3 is not
>      detected
>      >
>      >  I think this would be a fair compromise for distros not supporting
>      (yet) python3. However, I am not sure how this would result in the VPP
>      CI... wouldn't this break all tests running over those API?
>      >
>      >  Tests are python2.7 because scapy wasn't python3 capable when we
>      >  designed the test framework.
>      >
>      >  These are language bindings, not different API calls. Only test_vapi,
>      >  which tests that the language bindings of different types (simple
>      >  request, dump, event, etc.) work would have to be disabled.
>      >
>      >    I think this is a good interim work-around until the distros have
>      Python3.
>      >    I can submit another patch to allow this the inclusion would be
>      enabled as
>      >    a default but could be disabled only in downstream builds in RHEL
>      and
>      >    Centos 7.
>      >
>      >    When will we have tests in CSIT that use the C/C++ APIs in 17.10?
>      >
>      >    Neale, are we planning to cherry-pick this patch into 17.10?
>      >
>      >    Do we have yet tests in CSIT that use the C/C++ APIs in 17.10?
> 
>      Let me rephrase my words to clarify possible confusion which I see. New
>      C/C++ API bindings are just a way of calling old VPP APIs in a more
>      user-friendly way. They still call e.g. sw_interface_dump - there is no
>      change to APIs themselves.
> 
>      So it's important to distinguish between API (e.g. sw_interface_dump)
>      and API binding (which is a language-specific way of constructing
>      sw_interface_dump message and sending it over shared memory to VPP).
> 
>      I don't know about CSIT, but "make test" tests use python API bindings,
>      which internally uses old C API bindings (vapiclient). Unless we want
>      to remove old C API, there is little motivation to rework python API
>      binding as it contains more or less the same logic as the new C/C++ API
>      bindings.
> 
>      There is one test though which doesn't - test_vapi.py, which builds its
>      own test client binary for both new C and new C++ API to make sure that
>      it builds, links and executes as intended. It doesn't call python API
>      bindings at all, it only sets up the infra for running a test and then
>      spawns a binary, which does the actual testing (vs running native python
>      code as is the case for most of the other tests).
> 
>      Now to answer your questions:
> 
>      1.) there is no CSIT test which uses new C/C++ API
>      2.) there is only one "make test" test which uses new C/C++ API
>      (test_vapi), which is part of this change.
> 
>      To disable this partially on centos, we need to exclude
> 
>      a.) vpp-api/vapi/Makefile.am (don't build)
>      b.) test/ext/Makefile (don't build)
>      c.) test/test_vapi.py (don't run) - we can add code to skip this easily
>      if we can detect centos e.g. via some kind of environment variable from
>      within python..
> 
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >  3.) convert the script to python2.7 (which is in the opposite
>      direction of
>      >  where we would want to go wrt python version)
>      >
>      >  Thanks,
>      >  Klement
>      >
>      >  Cheers,
>      >  Marco
>      >
>      >  Quoting Thomas F Herbert (2017-09-23 15:55:10)
>      >
>      >     All:
>      >
>      >     Commit 8f2a4ea, Gerrit,  [1][4][6]https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/
>      "Add new C
>      >     API"
>      >
>      >     introduces a dependency on Python 3 and breaks downstream builds
>      for
>      >     Centos.
>      >
>      >     Unfortunately, neither RHEL nor Centos currently support Python 3.
>      >
>      >     Most VPPers are probably building with EPEL repo so this problem
>      didn't
>      >     show up until now but actually there is no dependency on EPEL in
>      the
>      >     Makefile or spec file.
>      >
>      >     If anybody can suggest a solution short of pushing Python 3 into
>      the
>      >     downstream repos, I am open to suggestions.
>      >
>      >     --Tom
>      >
>      >     --
>      >     Thomas F Herbert
>      >     NFV and Fast Data Planes
>      >     Office of Technology
>      >     Red Hat
>      >
>      >  References
>      >
>      >     Visible links
>      >     1. [5][7]https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/
>      >
>      >  _______________________________________________
>      >  vpp-dev mailing list
>      >  [6][8]vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
>      >  [7][9]https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >    --
>      >    Thomas F Herbert
>      >    NFV and Fast Data Planes
>      >    Office of Technology
>      >    Red Hat
>      >
>      > References
>      >
>      >    Visible links
>      >    1. mailto:[10]ksek...@cisco.com
>      >    2. mailto:[11]ksek...@cisco.com
>      >    3. [12]https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/53/Makefile
>      >    4. [13]https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/
>      >    5. [14]https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/
>      >    6. mailto:[15]vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
>      >    7. [16]https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
>      _______________________________________________
>      vpp-dev mailing list
>      [17]vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
>      [18]https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
> 
>    --
>    Billy McFall 
>    SDN Group 
>    Office of Technology 
>    Red Hat
> 
> References
> 
>    Visible links
>    1. https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/8584/
>    2. mailto:ksek...@cisco.com
>    3. mailto:ksek...@cisco.com
>    4. mailto:ksek...@cisco.com
>    5. https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/53/Makefile
>    6. https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/
>    7. https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/
>    8. mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
>    9. https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
>   10. mailto:ksek...@cisco.com
>   11. mailto:ksek...@cisco.com
>   12. https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/53/Makefile
>   13. https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/
>   14. https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/6983/
>   15. mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
>   16. https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
>   17. mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
>   18. https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
_______________________________________________
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
  • [vpp-dev] Pro... Thomas F Herbert
    • Re: [vpp... Klement Sekera -X (ksekera - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)
      • Re: ... Marco Varlese
        • ... Klement Sekera -X (ksekera - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)
          • ... Marco Varlese
            • ... Thomas F Herbert
              • ... Klement Sekera -X (ksekera - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)
                • ... Thomas Herbert
                • ... Ole Troan
                • ... Billy McFall
                • ... Klement Sekera -X (ksekera - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)
                • ... Florin Coras
              • ... Burt Silverman

Reply via email to