Given the confusion / lack of awareness around these issues, would it make sense for pip to point users towards an explanation and/or available work-arounds if pip sees that a user is trying to use the feature (e.g. if a user tries adding a version specifier or tries to use dependency links in general)?
--Chris On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 5:08 PM Dan Ryan <d...@danryan.co> wrote: > > Ah sorry! I was under the impression the “optimistic candidate” was being > proposed as one derived from a specifier supplied in the direct dependency > line by the user. If it’s a first guess essentially, I think that’s how we > operate anyway for the most part (at least in the future resolver) while we > step through the dependency graph. > > My main question is whether you’d consider a dependency specified in pep508 > form as satisfying other things that demand the given name even if, upon > download, the version doesn’t indicate that. If not, it still feels like we > need to download it first. Just because someone put a ref doesn’t mean they > don’t update that ref’s content :/ > > > Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer > gh: @techalchemy > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:11 PM Dan Ryan <d...@danryan.co> wrote: > >> > >> In the ideal future would we avoid the build step by having PyPI host > >> primarily wheels? In which case anything available on PyPI would hopefully > >> have its metadata exposed on the JSON endpoint and we could sidestep that. > >> > >> Either way we will ultimately have to download whatever is specified as a > >> direct url dependency because even if it has a version that aligns we will > >> need to figure out what dependencies it demands, etc etc. And while an > >> optimistic candidate is a neat idea it’s not clear to me at least whether > >> it’s a good idea to expect this of users. What happens when they get it > >> wrong? Do you trust the version in the package or do you allow an > >> override? Conflict resolution is possible either way but the desired > >> behavior there would seem to favor the former imo > > > > Everything I was talking about was stuff that would be happening > > inside the resolver loop, no users involved. The "optimistic > > candidate" would just be an initial tentative solution that the > > resolver uses internally to decide which things to try downloading > > first. > > > > You know more about how resolvers actually work than I do though, so I > > might have gotten it wrong :-). > > > > -n > > > > -- > > Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org > -- > 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/QRKFG4CNRJVRAXMUHA6RLKJ55V4QMRMK/ -- 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/KN6NOZFVLGB4WVMJXNZRGHI7WC5K3OM4/
