Draft: Bump Ubuntu (24.04) and Python (3.12) versions #409
Conversation
puneetmatharu
changed the title
|
I think this will silently update the Python version because we just use the default with the OS, so may need some tweaking of |
puneetmatharu
force-pushed
the
bump-dockerfile-ubuntu-versions
branch
from
988e5b2 to
d9131e8
Compare
That was naive of me. Ubuntu 24.04 doesn't provide Python 3.10 via apt-get so we might just have to bump to 3.12 with this change too... so we very likely won't be able to get this change in for the Dec release. |
|
puneetmatharu
force-pushed
the
bump-dockerfile-ubuntu-versions
branch
from
d9131e8 to
6edca2b
Compare
Yeah, I agree. In testing I found a lot of package updates: Better off handling this in the new year... |
puneetmatharu
changed the title
|
Thanks for taking a look. That's actually not as much as I thought, but still quite a delta! |
puneetmatharu
force-pushed
the
bump-dockerfile-ubuntu-versions
branch
from
6edca2b to
589bebc
Compare
Admittedly, if we wanted, I could actually get that knocked out in a day... I think a lot of those additions/deletions are just gonna be the same package but just for a different distribution so the licenses are gonna quite easy to identify. Up to you... |
puneetmatharu
force-pushed
the
bump-dockerfile-ubuntu-versions
branch
from
589bebc to
49d8a2f
Compare
| USER $DOCKER_USER | ||
|
|
||
| # Create a per-user virtualenv and use that for everything Python | ||
| RUN python -m venv /home/$DOCKER_USER/.venv |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to use a venv? Surely docker acts as our venv?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At least from Python 3.12, I can't easily install packages system-wide. I can try to pull out the previous runs where I tried to do this but I had to use a virtual environment to handle this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was it something like this: LandSandBoat/server#6385 ? If so, that's fair enough. The original design was aimed at simplicity (not having to activate anything to get things running) and a minimal SBOM, so provided we can still fulfil those two principles, I'm fine with it. One positive of venvs is that it allows you to separate build/debug/test environments in the same image (although we don't officially provide this functionality).
| { name: c7g, label: ah-ubuntu_22_04-c7g_8x-100 }, | ||
| { name: c8g, label: ah-ubuntu_22_04-c8g_8x } | ||
| { name: c7g, label: ah-ubuntu_24_04-c7g_8x-100 }, | ||
| { name: c8g, label: ah-ubuntu_24_04-c8g_8x } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not against this, but I wanted to note that it's not technically required in this change. The CI image should be distinct from the one used to build the wheel and the TS image
3 participants
No description provided.