Remove setuptools version pin

[gmarkall]

No description provided.

[esc]

@gmarkall is this a re-roll of #8366 and #8474 ? Do we want to use this one instead and close #8366 ?

[gmarkall]

@gmarkall is this a re-roll of #8366 and #8474 ? Do we want to use this one instead and close #8366 ?

No, it is still a dependency but not on any particular version. This is just a quick fix for the issues it causes (with potentially some new test issues introduced in tests for warnings, that may show up on the buildfarm).

[gmarkall]

Marking is RFR to see what people (and potentially the buildfarm run) think.

[stuartarchibald]

Thanks for the patch @gmarkall, as discussed OOB and in various issues, this appears to be an approximate revert of #8356 which makes the version of the setuptools runtime dependency unrestricted. On inspection only the patch looks good.

I was considering that this test might fail:

numba/numba/tests/test_import.py

Lines 96 to 103 in 061f21a

	def test_no_accidental_warnings(self):
	# checks that importing Numba isn't accidentally triggering warnings due
	# to e.g. deprecated use of import locations from Python's stdlib
	code = "import numba"
	# See: https://github.com/numba/numba/issues/6831
	# bug in setuptools/packaging causing a deprecation warning
	flags = ["-Werror", "-Wignore::DeprecationWarning:packaging.version:"]
	run_in_subprocess(code, flags)

but on second look, I don't think it will as importing numba doesn't import numba.pycc and so the numpy.distutils module won't be accessed.

[esc]

Buildfarm ID: numba_smoketest_cpu_yaml_135

[sklam]

I tested it on my mac and on win64 with setuptools=65 and numpy=1.23.

[gmarkall]

How did the buildfarm run go @esc?

[gmarkall]

I've put this in the 0.56.3RC milestone for now - I think this is the change we intend to consider for it (please let me know if this understanding was not right).

[esc]

How did the buildfarm run go @esc?

There were some issues that @sklam is looking into.

[gmarkall]

How did the buildfarm run go @esc?

There were some issues that @sklam is looking into.

Just to check, these are expected to be problems with the buildfarm and not this PR?

[esc]

How did the buildfarm run go @esc?

There were some issues that @sklam is looking into.

Just to check, these are expected to be problems with the buildfarm and not this PR?

This seems likely, yes, but isn't 100% conclusive, yet.

[sklam]

Ok on the farm

[mbargull]

It probably makes sense to restrict the build time dependency (runtime dependency might be fine to be unrestricted) given that setuptools can break numpy.distutils as happened again with the latest setuptools=65.6.0 release and NumPy themselves pin to setuptools<60.0.
See numpy/numpy#22623 (comment) and issues linked therein.

[stuartarchibald]

It probably makes sense to restrict the build time dependency (runtime dependency might be fine to be unrestricted) given that setuptools can break numpy.distutils as happened again with the latest setuptools=65.6.0 release and NumPy themselves pin to setuptools<60.0. See numpy/numpy#22623 (comment) and issues linked therein.

Thanks for raising this @mbargull, I've opened #8617 to ensure that this is discussed by the maintainers at the next triage meeting. There are a few patches pending review for the next Numba release that are hopefully going to remove a lot of the reliance on setuptools and numpy.distutils which might decrease the exposure to upstream changes. Thanks again!