On 30 June 2013 17:44, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> Donald has been continuing his data modelling work for Warehouse (aka >> PyPI 2.0: https://github.com/dstufft/warehouse) and found that the >> *_requires/*_may_require split for dependencies was significantly more >> painful to work with than I had expected. > > Has there been any public discussion about this? I'm just curious about what > the difficulties were. > >> 1. The "*_may_require" fields are all going away (leaving only the >> "*_requires" fields) >> >> 2. The "*_requires" fields are becoming lists of "dependency >> specifier" mappings rather than strings > > I'm wondering if this area could be simplified further. For example, can't > we lose test_requires, meta_requires, build_requires and dev_requires just > by stating that "test", "meta", "build" and "dev" are reserved extra names > which don't need to be explicitly defined in "extras"? Then you get just one > list of dependency specifiers, which can be readily filtered to provide what > is currently provided by {test,meta,build,dev}_requires. It seems to lead to > a very simple data model, as well as making the JSON schema more concise.
No, because the semantic dependencies form a Cartesian product with the extras. You can define :meta:, :run:, :test:, :build: and :dev: dependencies for any extra. So if, for example, you have a "localweb" extra, then you can define extra test dependencies for that. The semantic specifiers determine *which sets of dependencies* you're interested in, while the explicit extras define optional subsets of those. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
