[PATCH 1/2] test/py/requirements.txt: add setuptools

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 09:56:59AM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> On 11/21/25 8:39 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 08:36:14AM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> >> Add setuptools to test/py/requirements.txt. Otherwise, attempting to run
> >> tests can fail as follows:
> >>
> >>     $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build
> >>     +make O=u-boot/build-sandbox -s sandbox_defconfig
> >>     +make O=u-boot/build-sandbox -s -j32
> >>     Traceback (most recent call last):
> >>       File "u-boot/build-sandbox/../scripts/dtc/pylibfdt/setup.py", line 23, in <module>
> >>         from setuptools import setup, Extension
> >>     ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'setuptools'
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner at baylibre.com>
> >> ---
> >>  test/py/requirements.txt | 1 +
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > NAK. It's the build of U-Boot that requires setuptools (specifically
> > scripts/dtc/pylibfdt), not pytest. It was dropped as part of cleaning up
> > the test/py/requirements.txt file before. A top-level project
> > requirements.txt file would help avoid these problems, but we don't yet
> > have agreement on that.
> > 
> 
> OK, I think I see how it works now. It looks like most tools have
> a requirements.txt already, but dtc is missing it. Would it make
> sense to add a scripts/dtc/pylibfdt/requirements.txt containing
> setuptools?
> 
> Then `find . -name *requirements*.txt` would make it easy to find
> everything that might need to be installed for a given target.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable step. I think in the near'ish future we
might be able to instead switch to just installing pylibfdt.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20251121/3bcbed0c/attachment.sig>