Vinicius Monego schreef op ma 30-05-2022 om 20:55 [+0000]: > As mentioned in the cover letter for v4, octoprint hard-checks the > versions of its dependencies and uses pip to download new versions for > the packages it judges the version is incorrect. In the case of > zeroconf there is a notice in setup.py: > > https://github.com/OctoPrint/OctoPrint/blob/53b9b6185781c07e8c4744a6e28462e96448f249/setup.py#L67 To me this seems information to put in a comment next to the input list (and next to python-zeroconf-0.33). Also, I recommend removing the pip downloading code to be 100% sure it won't be run. > The author recognizes that octoprint is not so friendly to packagers: > https://github.com/OctoPrint/OctoPrint/issues/1922#issuecomment-302407764 > It does depend on specific versions of some packages, for the one > or other reasons, and this is something I do not want not change > > - I've run into too many problems with outdated python libraries > > provided by the system package manager that produced horribly > > hard to track down bugs. There are bugs in the python-zeroconf@0.33 that have been fixed in python-zeroconf@0.38.1. The readme in https://github.com/jstasiak/python-zeroconf mentions a few fixed bugs that seem rather subtle. So as-is, we would be distributing an octoprint with a known-buggy depdendency with known fixes. Though neither is changing to the new zeroconf an option (unless changes are made to octoprint) as-is because the new zeroconf is apparently incompatible. Greetings, Maxime.