Alberto Valverde wrote: > Christoph Zwerschke wrote: >> But shouldn't RuleDispatch then have >> "DecoratorTools" in its "install_requires"? > > Not really. DecoratorTools is a dependency of PyProtocols, not > RuleDispatch.
Actually it is a dependency of both, since it is used directly in RuleDispatch as well. Otherwise, if PyProtocols suddenly stops using DecoratorTools, then RuleDispatch will break. So I think it would be cleaner if RuleDispatch required DecoratorTools explicitly. >> 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. You're completely right here. I just wasn't aware that the latest PyProtocols revisions already require DecoratorTools. -- Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
