Add support for Ubuntu Noble dependencies

paketo-buildpacks / cpython

Apache License 2.0

10 stars 16 forks source link

Add support for Ubuntu Noble dependencies #710

Closed pbusko closed 4 months ago

pbusko commented 6 months ago

Summary

Update automation to support Ubuntu Noble based stacks

Use Cases

Noble based stacks support

Checklist

[X] I have viewed, signed, and submitted the Contributor License Agreement.
[X] I have linked issue(s) that this PR should close using keywords or the Github UI (See docs)
[ ] I have added an integration test, if necessary.
[X] I have reviewed the styleguide for guidance on my code quality.
[X] I'm happy with the commit history on this PR (I have rebased/squashed as needed).

pbusko commented 6 months ago

Seems like current automation does not correctly react to the addition of new stack. It reports that no version/stack combination needs compilation.

loewenstein commented 5 months ago

@paketo-buildpacks/python-maintainers Should we set PR labels (and could we @pbusko)? Seems to me that all other checks are waiting on this one before they even start.

loewenstein commented 5 months ago

Ah no, they are waiting for explicit approval from @paketo-buildpacks/python-maintainers

arjun024 commented 5 months ago

@pbusko Other than the above comment LGTM - but as is convention do we have an RFC approved to introduce Noble support across Paketo? I couldn't find one. @paketo-buildpacks/steering-committee Do we have consensus to rollout noble-based dependencies?

loewenstein commented 5 months ago

@pbusko Other than the above comment LGTM - but as is convention do we have an RFC approved to introduce Noble support across Paketo? I couldn't find one. @paketo-buildpacks/steering-committee Do we have consensus to rollout noble-based dependencies?

Hi @arjun024, I was about to reply that "yes, sure we have an RFC to adopt every LTS" but I have to say that I can't find anything other than the specific RFCs for Jammy. However, I recall for sure that we discussed back when Jammy was introduced, that we would adopt every LTS (instead of every other as it was for e.g. the CF buildpacks).

We have discussed in WG Meetings and on Slack and I actually created repositories for stacks and buildpackless builders already.

arjun024 commented 5 months ago

@loewenstein SGTM. @pbusko Please also rebase the branch onto main after you add the tests. The PR is currently not mergeable.