Distributions.jl failed to be installed due to SpecialFunctions.jl #324
Comments
|
Funny, when I just use pkg> update Distributions.jl, it works: v1.2) pkg> update Distributions.jl Not sure what is happening here. |
|
I don't see the relation to DSP.jl? |
galenlynch
added a commit
to galenlynch/General
that referenced
this issue
Nov 23, 2019
This is another attempt at JuliaRegistries#5230, which was an attempt at fixing the breakage caused by JuliaMath/AbstractFFTs.jl#26 (e.g. JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#320, JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#323, JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#324). The underlying problem is that JuliaMath/AbstractFFTs.jl#26 moved functions from DSP.jl to AbstractFFTs.jl, requiring users to have versions of both of those packages either before that change or after it. Because FFTW reexports AbstractFFTWs, users also have to coordinate versions of DSP.jl and FFTW.jl. This problem was fixed for the most recent versions of DSP.jl and FFTW.jl (v0.6.1 and v1.1, respectively) by JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#322 and JuliaMath/FFTW.jl#124. However, because earlier versions of FFTW do not have an upper bound for its dependency on AbstractFFTs, and neither does DSP, Pkg cannot currently tell that some combinations of versions for AsbtractFFTs and DSP.jl are incompatible, which is causing users to experience issues even after the problem was fixed for the most recent versions (JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#323, JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#324). Fixing the problem is made slightly more complicated because DSP does not explicitly depend on AbstractFFTs, but instead DSP implicitly depends on AbstractFFTs through FFTW's reexport of it, and in turn DSP explicitly depends on FFTW. To fix this problem, I have changed the Compat.toml for FFTW to place a upper bound on AbstractFFTs, so that packages get a consistent interface when using FFTW. I have also changed the Compat.toml for DSP, to avoid breakage caused by AbstractFFTs v0.5 taking some functions that were previously defined in DSP. In addition, the Compat.toml for DSP showed versions before 0.5.1 to be compatible with Julia 1, which was inaccurate. I have therefore changed this TOML table to restrict the DSP versions to the range that is compatible with Julia 1. I have tested that these changes work for the most recent versions of DSP and FFTW, as well as older versions.
ararslan
pushed a commit
to JuliaRegistries/General
that referenced
this issue
Nov 25, 2019
This is another attempt at #5230, which was an attempt at fixing the breakage caused by JuliaMath/AbstractFFTs.jl#26 (e.g. JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#320, JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#323, JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#324). The underlying problem is that JuliaMath/AbstractFFTs.jl#26 moved functions from DSP.jl to AbstractFFTs.jl, requiring users to have versions of both of those packages either before that change or after it. Because FFTW reexports AbstractFFTWs, users also have to coordinate versions of DSP.jl and FFTW.jl. This problem was fixed for the most recent versions of DSP.jl and FFTW.jl (v0.6.1 and v1.1, respectively) by JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#322 and JuliaMath/FFTW.jl#124. However, because earlier versions of FFTW do not have an upper bound for its dependency on AbstractFFTs, and neither does DSP, Pkg cannot currently tell that some combinations of versions for AsbtractFFTs and DSP.jl are incompatible, which is causing users to experience issues even after the problem was fixed for the most recent versions (JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#323, JuliaDSP/DSP.jl#324). Fixing the problem is made slightly more complicated because DSP does not explicitly depend on AbstractFFTs, but instead DSP implicitly depends on AbstractFFTs through FFTW's reexport of it, and in turn DSP explicitly depends on FFTW. To fix this problem, I have changed the Compat.toml for FFTW to place a upper bound on AbstractFFTs, so that packages get a consistent interface when using FFTW. I have also changed the Compat.toml for DSP, to avoid breakage caused by AbstractFFTs v0.5 taking some functions that were previously defined in DSP. In addition, the Compat.toml for DSP showed versions before 0.5.1 to be compatible with Julia 1, which was inaccurate. I have therefore changed this TOML table to restrict the DSP versions to the range that is compatible with Julia 1. I have tested that these changes work for the most recent versions of DSP and FFTW, as well as older versions.
|
This should be fixed by JuliaRegistries/General#5778, and should resolve itself if you update your julia packages. If that doesn't fix it, please reopen this issue. |
|
Thanks a lot. It's working. I just updated all packages ("pkg> update") and the problems are gone. Once again, thanks. |
|
No problem! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Apparently, I have a problem related to Distributions.jl. I tried to add Distributions.jl and got this error: (in Windows 10, Atom 1.41.0 x64, Julia1.2). Well, in fact, I had Distributions 0.20 already installed in my computer. I had a problem with QuantEcon which mentioned SpecialFunctions.jl, and I tried to update Distributions.jl. The error comes as:
(v1.2) pkg> add https://github.com/JuliaStats/Distributions.jl
Cloning git-repo https://github.com/JuliaStats/Distributions.jl
Updating git-repo https://github.com/JuliaStats/Distributions.jl
Updating git-repo https://github.com/JuliaStats/Distributions.jl
Resolving package versions...
ERROR: Unsatisfiable requirements detected for package SpecialFunctions [276daf66]:
SpecialFunctions [276daf66] log:
├─possible versions are: [0.7.0-0.7.2, 0.8.0] or uninstalled
├─restricted to versions 0.8.0-0.8 by Distributions [31c24e10], leaving only versions 0.8.0
│ └─Distributions [31c24e10] log:
│ ├─possible versions are: 0.21.7 or uninstalled
│ └─Distributions [31c24e10] is fixed to version 0.21.7
└─restricted to versions 0.7.2 by an explicit requirement — no versions left
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: