[Distutils] Comments on PEP 426 and 459

Daniel Holth dholth at gmail.com
Tue Apr 8 19:04:32 CEST 2014


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Is the entire justification for this feature not "we
>> don't trust you to put == in run_requires",
>
> I'm confused - where would the == which you speak of go? IIUC a run_requires looks like
>
> "run_requires": [ { "requires": ["SoftCushions"], "extra": "warmup" }
> ]
>
>
> where each dictionary in the list could have "requires", "extra" and "environment" keys. The "environment" value might have "==" as part of a marker expression. Are you talking about something else?
>
> Regards,
>
> Vinay Sajip

That would be the == in "requires": ["SoftCushions == 4"] which IIUC
in the current PEP would be allowed in meta_ but disallowed in
run_requirements.

Nick has said in the past that he thinks it's easier to teach the 4
specific concepts without having to [first] explain the general case.
Most of our disagreements have been about this issue: whether a
distinction is important enough to deserve special treatment in the
spec, or whether it can be expressed when needed as a consequence of
having a more general format.


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list