[Distutils] Proposal for incorporating buildout-versions on buildout (Re: Better version pinning in buildout (buildout-versions))

[Jim Fulton]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Chris Withers <chris at python.org> wrote:
> On 15/01/2013 10:36, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I thought it might be this ;-)
>>> I don't know how hard it'd be top implement but in an ideal world I'd
>>> prefer
>>> to see develop eggs trump any other sources but still have version
>>> requirements checked.
>>
>>
>> That's the case today.
>
>
> I don't believe it is, if you have:
>
> [buildout]
> develop = /checkouts/somepackage.2.0.0
> versions = versions
>
> [versions]
> somepackage = 1.4.2
>
> ...I've always found that /checkouts/somepackage.2.0.0 isn't on the python
> path but that for version 1.4.2 is.

Right, meaning the version requirement *is* checked.

I guess I don't understand: "I don't know how hard it'd be top
implement but in an ideal world I'd prefer to see develop eggs trump
any other sources but still have version requirements checked."

>
>> So why did you change this in buildout-versions? (Or did you?)
>
>
> Certainly not intentionally ;-)
>
>
>> The buildout-versions docs only say that unpinned versions aren't
>> reported for develop-eggs. They don't actually say that version
>> requirements
>> are ignored for develop eggs.
>
>
> Yep, these are both correct. The hacks that buildout-versions inherits from
> buildout.dumppickedversions means that versions for develop eggs never
> showed up. I would have loved to fix that but ran out of energy.

What would you like to fix? Can you state how you would like it to
behave?

(I'm still of the opinion that Martijn and Marius, and probably others,
are right that develop eggs should be used even if they don't satisfy
version requirements.)

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm