Closed ashgillman closed 1 year ago
question is of course if it installed everything that we need, as you've removed some stuff. Can you confirm that the other packages are actually there?
or just list them anyway (might be easiest)
The other packages that I removed are not explicit dependencies - we never import them, so we only want them if the other dependencies need them. I included them only to make sure they were binary only.
No matter, I've checked the pip install
output and can confirm that with the current pip they are still installed
As this isn't going to fix the conda
as it doesn't have brainweb
, I suggest we leave this for 3.2
I may be confused here, but usually conda doesn't interface directly with a requirement.txt? You would use pip from within conda, so it should be available via pip?
sure. It's just that the docker script uses requirements.txt
with conda install -f
as a first attempt, and then falls back to pip
. the latter works fine.
anyway, let's forget about this for now
Yes I agree, above comment was for later :)
@KrisThielemans @ashgillman in the creation of the jupyterhub image for the training I remove the --only-binary
during installation, so conda may succeed.
For the requirements of @gschramm's pyapetnet
, I install from requirements-pyapetnet.txt
all that it's possible via conda, and only what's not possible via pip, by reading the file line by line.
@KrisThielemans @ashgillman in the creation of the jupyterhub image for the training I remove the
--only-binary
during installation, so conda may succeed.
When I checked, it doesn't as brainweb
isn't in conda. Anyway...
Yes, I should do the line-by-line also there.
Yes, I should do the line-by-line also there.
except that conda
recommends to do all installs together such that it can resolve versions better...
package management isn't easy, which is something that we know by now!
fixed in #187
Tested on Docker sirf:latest (not service), installed successfully without --only-binary