On 13. 08. 26 21:51, Ben Beasley via python-devel wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026, at 8:43 PM, Maxwell G via python-devel wrote:
On 8/13/26 2:06 PM, Miro Hrončok via python-devel wrote:
I think this behavior is desirable in certain circumstances (e.g., to
package an "all" extra where only one of the optional dependencies is
missing), but maybe the macro should require specifying both the name of
the dependency and the name of the extra when making a change to a
dependency of an extra.
I can see the argument for more specificity, although I don’t find the current
behavior surprising, and I believe there are already several cases where I am
relying on it.
I don't mind codifying this, but if that is the indented behavior, we should
document it. And perhaps modify the output (in case somebody reads it).
Currently it says:
Removing dependency rich from METADATA per override
It could say something like:
Removing dependency `rich>=13; extra == "rich"` from METADATA per override
(rich:ignore)
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
--
_______________________________________________
python-devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
