Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.rc > #307231 > unrolled thread

Bug#997758: nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220)

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.rc

Contents

  Bug#997758: nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220) Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2021-10-24 14:40 +0200
    Bug#997758: nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220) Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2021-10-24 15:30 +0200
      Bug#997758: nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-10-25 00:00 +0200
        Bug#997758: nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220) Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2021-10-25 20:30 +0200
      Bug#997758: nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220) Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2021-10-28 05:40 +0200
    Processed: Re: Bug#997758: nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error  in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220) "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2021-10-25 19:20 +0200
    Bug#997758: marked as pending in nose Dmitry Shachnev <noreply@salsa.debian.org> - 2021-10-30 21:20 +0200
    Processed: Bug#997758 marked as pending in nose "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2021-10-30 21:20 +0200
    Bug#997758: marked as done (nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error  in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220)) "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2021-10-30 22:40 +0200

#307231 — Bug#997758: nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220)

Source: nose
Version: 1.3.7-7
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs
User: lucas@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20211023 ftbfs-bookworm

Hi,

During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.


Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>'
> dh_auto_build
> I: pybuild base:232: /usr/bin/python3 setup.py build 
> running build
> running build_py
> creating /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/proxy.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/case.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/core.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/__init__.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/__main__.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/selector.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/inspector.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/loader.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/result.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/util.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/suite.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/config.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/failure.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/importer.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/exc.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/twistedtools.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/pyversion.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> copying nose/commands.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> creating /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/ext
> copying nose/ext/__init__.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/ext
> copying nose/ext/dtcompat.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/ext
> creating /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/skip.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/__init__.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/cover.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/logcapture.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/debug.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/testid.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/prof.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/doctests.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/deprecated.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/builtin.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/failuredetail.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/isolate.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/multiprocess.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/plugintest.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/errorclass.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/xunit.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/manager.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/attrib.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/allmodules.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/base.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/capture.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> copying nose/plugins/collect.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/plugins
> creating /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/sphinx
> copying nose/sphinx/__init__.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/sphinx
> copying nose/sphinx/pluginopts.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/sphinx
> creating /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/tools
> copying nose/tools/trivial.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/tools
> copying nose/tools/__init__.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/tools
> copying nose/tools/nontrivial.py -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose/tools
> copying nose/usage.txt -> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build/nose
> running build_scripts
> creating build
> creating build/scripts-3.9
> copying and adjusting bin/nosetests -> build/scripts-3.9
> changing mode of build/scripts-3.9/nosetests from 644 to 755
> PYTHONPATH=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/.pybuild/cpython3_3.9_nose/build python3 setup.py build_sphinx
> running build_sphinx
> Running Sphinx v4.2.0
> 
> Configuration error:
> There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220)
> 
> make[1]: *** [debian/rules:15: override_dh_auto_build] Error 1


The full build log is available from:
http://qa-logs.debian.net/2021/10/23/nose_1.3.7-7_unstable.log

A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at
http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute!

If you reassign this bug to another package, please marking it as 'affects'-ing
this package. See https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#affects

If you fail to reproduce this, please provide a build log and diff it with mine
so that we can identify if something relevant changed in the meantime.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#307276

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi all!

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 01:49:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Source: nose
> Version: 1.3.7-7
> Severity: serious
> Justification: FTBFS
> Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs
> User: lucas@debian.org
> Usertags: ftbfs-20211023 ftbfs-bookworm
>
> Hi,
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
> on amd64.
>
> [...]

It happens because setuptools v58.0.0 removed support for 2to3 during builds,
which nose relied on (because it has a Python 2 codebase).

Instead of spending time on a proper Python 3 port, I would prefer to simply
let nose die (it is abandoned since 2016).

If anyone is still using nose (1.x), please port your packages to nose2,
pure unittest or pytest. I am attaching a dd-list and I intend to do a MBF
in a few weeks when I have more time.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#307356

On 10/24/21 3:24 PM, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi all!
> 
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 01:49:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Source: nose
>> Version: 1.3.7-7
>> Severity: serious
>> Justification: FTBFS
>> Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs
>> User: lucas@debian.org
>> Usertags: ftbfs-20211023 ftbfs-bookworm
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
>> on amd64.
>>
>> [...]
> 
> It happens because setuptools v58.0.0 removed support for 2to3 during builds,
> which nose relied on (because it has a Python 2 codebase).
> 
> Instead of spending time on a proper Python 3 port, I would prefer to simply
> let nose die (it is abandoned since 2016).
> 
> If anyone is still using nose (1.x), please port your packages to nose2,
> pure unittest or pytest. I am attaching a dd-list and I intend to do a MBF
> in a few weeks when I have more time.
> 
> --
> Dmitry Shachnev

Hi,

I'm referenced for 55 packages. Please don't force me to do this right
away, that's too much work. I very much would prefer if we could have a
smoother transition.

Note that it's possible that for many packages mentioned, only removing
the dependency should be enough. Still, that's some work to do... :/

Other alternative would be: help with NMU fixes (or I can add any of you
in the OpenStack team if you need...).

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#307423

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Thomas and all!

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 11:53:19PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm referenced for 55 packages. Please don't force me to do this right
> away, that's too much work. I very much would prefer if we could have a
> smoother transition.
>
> Note that it's possible that for many packages mentioned, only removing
> the dependency should be enough. Still, that's some work to do... :/
>
> Other alternative would be: help with NMU fixes (or I can add any of you
> in the OpenStack team if you need...).

Thanks to Jakub Wilk, we have a patch which fixes the FTBFS and I will apply
it for the time being.

However, it would be still nice to remove nose at some future point, maybe
before Bookworm release. Last release was in June 2015 (six years ago!) and
the project is dead and unmaintained. As you can see, it was not even ported
to Python 3 properly.

There is absolutely no rush, and I am going to follow the usual procedure:
discuss on debian-devel, do MBF with severity: normal, then bump severities
to important and finally to RC. There will be a few months before each stage.

I'm impressed by the number of packages you have depending on nose, but if
they all come from the same upstream, maybe you can convince this upstream
to not rely on dead software.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#307661

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> writes:

> Hi all!
>
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 01:49:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Source: nose
>> Version: 1.3.7-7
>> Severity: serious
>> Justification: FTBFS
>> Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs
>> User: lucas@debian.org
>> Usertags: ftbfs-20211023 ftbfs-bookworm
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
>> on amd64.
>>
>> [...]
[snip]
> Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>
>    elpy (U)
>

Please ignore Elpy for now, because it's RC for other reasons, eg:
Python 3.9 broke it, the upstream maintainer has RSI, and I don't think
that it will be fixed anytime soon.  I'm still holding out hope for a
the maintainer's recover and/or a new upstream maintainer, but failing
this, users will migrate to an LSP-based solution--they're already
migrating.

Regards,
Nicholas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#307419 — Processed: Re: Bug#997758: nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220)

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + patch
Bug #997758 [src:nose] nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220)
Added tag(s) patch.

-- 
997758: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=997758
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#307844 — Bug#997758: marked as pending in nose

Control: tag -1 pending

Hello,

Bug #997758 in nose reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:

https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/nose/-/commit/639224803dc9c3d00da68163cf73344196dee6e1

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapt to setuptools 58 removing support for 2to3 during builds.

- Add a patch to fix syntax in doc/conf.py for Python 3.
- Add a patch to remove code that relied on setuptools calling 2to3.
- Run 2to3 manually after build and before running tests.
- Update the commands to run tests.

Closes: #997758.

Thanks to Jakub Wilk for the suggestions!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(this message was generated automatically)
-- 
Greetings

https://bugs.debian.org/997758

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#307846 — Processed: Bug#997758 marked as pending in nose

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 pending
Bug #997758 [src:nose] nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220)
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
997758: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=997758
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#307864 — Bug#997758: marked as done (nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220))

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Your message dated Sat, 30 Oct 2021 20:34:51 +0000
with message-id <E1mgv3z-000IFd-8e@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#997758: fixed in nose 1.3.7-8
has caused the Debian Bug report #997758,
regarding nose: FTBFS: There is a syntax error in your configuration file: invalid syntax (conf.py, line 220)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
997758: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=997758
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.rc

csiph-web