I’m wondering, why is it needed to specify both a version and a link? I assume the version specifier would be redundant when a link is provided as the source, since the link can only point to one possible package version.
-- Tzu-ping Chung (@uranusjr) uranu...@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Jan 2019, at 17:07, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 08:50, Jan Musílek <jan.musi...@nic.cz> wrote: >> >> Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>> What would this do? I don't think there's any way for pip (or any >>> program) to look at a git repo and extract a list of which revisions >>> correspond to which python package versions. I guess you could have >>> some hack where you guess that certain tag strings correspond to >>> certain versions, but it seems pretty messy to me... >> >> Well, I'd like it to do the exact same think as dependency_links did before >> they were removed from pip. AFAIK it was possible to specify `package >= >> 10.0` in `install_requires` and then >> `https://github.com/owner/package.git#egg=package-0` in `depencency_links`. >> I don't really see into the pip internals, so I'm not sure how pip did it in >> the past. But it's a real issue [1]. >> >> [1] https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/5898 > > If this is to be an extension to the current PEP, then *someone* is > going to need to specify the semantics precisely. That's part of the > problem - existing behaviours are implementation defined, and not > specified clearly anywhere. The first step in working out a PEP update > is to define those semantics so they can be discussed without vague > statements like "needs to work like dependency_links does". > > I don't know how dependency_links worked, but URL links as defined in > PEP 508 give "the URL to a specific artifact to install". So they link > to one precise file, i.e. one precise version. So the only plausible > semantics I can see for something like "package >= 10.0 @ > https://github.com/owner/package.git"; would be "Get the package at > that URL. If it doesn't satisfy the version restriction "package >= > 10.0", discard it. If it does satisfy that restriction, install it. > Which doesn't seem that useful, IMO. > > Maybe the way to define useful semantics here would be to articulate > the actual problem you're trying to solve (*without* referring to how > dependency_links works) and propose a semantics that solves that > problem? > > Paul > -- > Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/B7MZO6AX7THV2RPUP6BA7VMUMCEUUXMC/
-- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/VAVYUDUBTPFQXTHIR2PNGIW2CSCZJFXP/
