To clarify in this spec to specify a couple of requirements for the [foo] extra would you have to say
[foo] requests [foo] sqlalchemy
Compare to requires.txt from setuptools which IIRC is a plain text file like so, with normal requirements not in a section, and extra or conditional requirements in sections named [extra_name;marker]:
[;marker] non-extra requirement if marker evaluates to true
[extra] unconditional requirements for extra
[extra;marker] requirement for extra with if marker evaluates to true
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:45 PM Marcus Smith firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The language defined is a compact line based format which is already in widespread use
this is the most critical thing for me, and the reason this approach seems more attractive than the path of PEP426, although I'd certainly like to see Nick's reaction.
PEP426 tries to cover how names/specifiers/extras/markers would be put together in abstract "in-memory representation" (that can be serialized to json), but it's left open to pip (and other tools) to lay down a standard (via implementation) for how these pieces are put together and used by users.
this PEP would dictate both, right? the user way, and the internal metadata way....
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig