Closed mrclary closed 2 months ago
And what could be a possible solution? I'm sorry but I don't understand how to address this problem.
The first issue, regarding the dev channel, is straight-forward and can be accommodated when we patch the conda-lock file.
I thought that the second issue would be more problematic. In order to have the same build string in the conda-lock file and on conda-forge I thought there were only 2 options: 1) explicitly set the build string; or 2) build the conda package from an un-patched meta.yaml
file.
However, I have discovered that I'm wrong about how the hash info is compiled. The difference between our CI build string and the conda-forge build string results from conda-forge having an additional conda_build_config.yaml
which is absent from our CI. conda-build
searches several locations for this configuration file and merges all files discovered, so the configuration consists of more that just what is in our feedstock recipe.
I have narrowed down the relevant configuration spec to
python:
- <major>.<minor>.* *_cython
This can be patched in the conda_build_config.yaml
file in our feedstock when we build on CI.
Ok, that's really good 👍🏽
The installer workflow generates a conda-lock file for updating installer-based Spyder versions. The explicit url specification in the file has the form:
There are two issues with the url in the conda-lock file.
6.0.0b2
)label/spyder_dev/
is missing from the url.<build-string>
portion does not match that of the package on conda-forge. This is because the<build-string>
contains a hash that is automatically generated byconda-build
based on the contents ofmeta.yaml
in the recipe, and this file will differ slightly between our CI and conda-forge.@spyder-ide/core-developers, we should discuss possible solutions.