<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Erik Bray <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:erik.m.bray@gmail.com" target="_blank">erik.m.bray@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM, PJ Eby <<a href="mailto:pje@telecommunity.com">pje@telecommunity.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Holth <<a href="mailto:dholth@gmail.com">dholth@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> It looks like you can only install one extra at a time,<br>
><br>
><br>
> Actually, you can specify more than one, using commas. e.g. "easy_install<br>
> foo[testing,c-extensions,celery-support,...]".<br>
<br>
</div></div>Would we want this to look the same way for pysetup? Something like<br>
`pysetup install foo[tests,docs]`? That would be a pretty nice way to<br>
handle docs, tests, and other miscellaneous extra requirements. I<br>
like the idea of using environment markers for that and not having to<br>
add any new metadata fields.<br>
<br>
Using an environment marker might also work for some kind of<br>
build-requires, though support for that would still require some<br>
special machinery.<br></blockquote><div><br>Since I haven't used pysetup yet, I couldn't really say. I can say that some people have mentioned that they find setuptools' "extras" mechanism to be confusing, unnecessary, or a tool in search of a usecase. I'm not terribly attached to them, but I prefer them to the solution that e.g. Celery uses. Celery has various dummy distributions on PyPI like "celery-with-couchdb" that exist only to pull in extras, and it only needs them because some packaging tools don't support extras. (ISTR that pip doesn't support them.)<br>
<br><br></div></div><br>