ci: use cibuildwheel

[mayeut]

This is an attempt to move to cibuildwheel.
It seemed better to start from the existing code rather than the repo by @ax3l mentioned in #138

Please let me know if there's no interest in doing that.
I'll expand a bit more on the different changes if there's some interest.

Fix #138

[mayeut]

Travis CI build is OK here.
The GHA build can be seen there

[ax3l]

Wuhu, super cool! This would be fabulous!

[henryiii]

I think it would be fine to tag a release before moving, but then I'd be happy with the move! Also like seeing a src directory, as that makes testing that it actually builds/installs much easier. +1 from me on the idea, though I haven't fully reviewed the code yet, so don't consider it a sign off quite yet.

[mayeut]

I think it would be fine to tag a release before moving

I agree.

Also like seeing a src directory, as that makes testing that it actually builds/installs much easier.

yeah, I really did have some troubles with testing with the current layout. Don't know why it was always trying to test the repo source rather than the installed wheel or SDist (even when running from a cwd other than the project root...). I wanted to change as little as possible things that don't relate to CI but this one was required somehow.

though I haven't fully reviewed the code yet, so don't consider it a sign off quite yet.

It's not quite ready for a thorough review. Just checking the interest for this move with some concrete working "sample". If the interest in the move is also confirmed by @jcfr, I'll continue moving from "sample" to "production ready" before undrafting this. If you want to throw in comments meanwhile, I'll make sure to take them into account while "getting there".

[jcfr]

think it would be fine to tag a release before moving

@henryiii That makes sense. Would like me to push a tag ? Or would like to do so ?

[henryiii]

For a large-ish release like this, I'd like you to. For a patch release, I'm happy to do it.

[henryiii]

(Though I guess I can if you really want me to)

[henryiii]

Looked to be very straightforward (doesn't even have readme stats to update), so I've pushed a signed tag. If all works well, I'll also make it a GitHub release so that the page shows the latest release and so that anyone watching releases sees a release.

[henryiii]

Ahh, there's a bug in the CircleCI deploy - it deployed the SDist, but not the regular x86 Linux wheel! Doesn't seem to be persisted anywhere downloadable, either.

[henryiii]

To run this locally:

CIBW_BUILD='cp39-*' \
CIBW_MANYLINUX_X86_64_IMAGE=dockcross/manylinux1-x64 \
CIBW_MANYLINUX_I686_IMAGE=dockcross/manylinux1-x86 \
CIBW_BEFORE_BUILD="pip install -r requirements-repair.txt" \
CIBW_REPAIR_WHEEL_COMMAND="python scripts/repair_wheel.py -w {dest_dir} {wheel}" \
CIBW_TEST_REQUIRES="-r requirements-test.txt" \
CIBW_TEST_COMMAND="pytest {project}/tests" \
CIBW_ENVIRONMENT_LINUX="SKBUILD_CONFIGURE_OPTIONS='-DOPENSSL_ROOT_DIR:PATH=/usr/local/ssl -DCMAKE_JOB_POOL_COMPILE:STRING=compile -DCMAKE_JOB_POOL_LINK:STRING=link -DCMAKE_JOB_POOLS:STRING=compile=2;link=1'" \
pipx run cibuildwheel --plat linux

@joerick @YannickJadoul This has convinced me that pypa/cibuildwheel#547 is a good idea. If this was stored somewhere non-CI specific, I could have just run pipx run cibuildwheel --plat linux and make wheels instead of looking this up and translating each option.

[mayeut]

I opened #145 for an easier review of the src/{package} layout refactor.

[mayeut]

I opened #147 for an easier review of the repair_wheel.py script refactor.

[mayeut]

I opened #148 for an easier review of the "split requirements" refactor.

[henryiii]

Since this is still a little ways off (probably requiring at least an alpha release of cibuildwheel 2.0 with the pyproject config), I'll probably go ahead and release a 3.20.3 in the next day or two.

[mayeut]

cibuildwheel v2.0.0a4 is now available. All pre-requisites are in master so putting this one out of draft.

[henryiii]

I'm fine to merge this, and use the next release to test it (that's why I've always been one release behind cmake.org - so we'd have a release to test this on). I'll have to change the required checks before merging. I'd like to then add the nox one too since it makes it easier to update to the latest CMake. @jcfr, any final thoughts?