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. -- _______________________________________________ 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
