On Apr 21, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
>
> Alberto Valverde wrote:
>> peak.util.decorators is inside DecoratorTools, not PEAK ("peak" and
>> "peak.util" are namespace packages [1]). You can test this by
>> importing it without installing PEAK. I'm pretty sure Phillip would
>> have listed PEAK as an install_requires of RD if it was really
>> needed. :)
>
> Ah, that's great! But shouldn't RuleDispatch then have
> "DecoratorTools"
> in its "install_requires"?
Not really. DecoratorTools is a dependency of PyProtocols, not
RuleDispatch.
> Maybe that is the real problem. And maybe we
> should also explicitely require DecoratorTools for TurboGears?
I don't think so. For the same reason. Although TG indirectly
requires DecoratorTools, I think it's best not to explicitly declare
indirect dependencies unless we need to "pin" an explicit version for
any reason (eg: compatibility between two required libraries).
Probably the biggest reason behind is to ease on maintainance.
Explictly declaring *all* dependencies at TG's setup.py would be a
nightmare to maintain when third-party libraries update their
requirements. I think it's better to let third party libraries handle
their own dependencies and let setuptools do its magic.
Alberto
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears Trunk" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
