feat: Remove the urllib3 pinning

[sathieu]

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature
/kind regression

What this PR does / why we need it:

The PR removes the version pinning for the urllib3 library.

Same as #2461, for release-34 branch

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes#2458#2424

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

We no longer pin the `urllib3` version. `urllib3` 2.4.0 introduced stricter certificate checks on Python 3.13+, which may trigger: [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: Missing Authority Key Identifier
This only affects clusters (version <=1.16) with outdated or misconfigured certificates (e.g. old AWS EKS versions). Please update the Kubernetes cluster certificates.

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @sathieu!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-client/python 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-client/python has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[HenriBlacksmith]

It should probably take #2477 into account?

[sathieu]

It should probably take #2477 into account?

2.6.1 has been released which reverts the breaking change.

Ref: #2477 (comment)

[HenriBlacksmith]

It should probably take #2477 into account?

2.6.1 has been released which reverts the breaking change.

Ref: #2477 (comment)

Yes, to be clearer my suggestion is to yank/disallow 2.6.0 in the requirements

[bonastreyair]

I wonder when it will be released...

[sathieu]

@HenriBlacksmith I've excluded 2.6.0, sorry for the delay.

[yliaog]

could you please add the fix (!= 2.6.0) to the main branch too, so it can be included in 1.35 release.

[yliaog]

/assign

[yliaog]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sathieu, yliaog

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [yliaog]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[sathieu]

could you please add the fix (!= 2.6.0) to the main branch too, so it can be included in 1.35 release.

Done in #2491

[sathieu]

Thanks for merging @yliaog.

Any ETA of a new 34.x (or 35.x) version?

[yliaog]

started 1.35 release in PR: #2492, the release will go through alpha, beta, and GA. It will complete in ~2 weeks.

[acornett21]

@yliaog Are you saying there will be no 1.34 version with this fix?

[hoerup]

#2496

[gonmmarques]

@yliaog Are you saying there will be no 1.34 version with this fix?

I have the same question, any feedback? Thanks

[yliaog]

there is no plan for another 1.34 release, does 1.35 work for you?

[acornett21]

1.35 does not work for my use case, since I need to release an application that has go and python k8s dependencies, and having mixed versions causes various/numerous issues. At a later point, this application will get updated to 1.35, but skipping 1.34 really isn't an option. I've been waiting 3+ months for a backport with many users waiting, which has been extremely frustrating.