Add library for deprecated #6146
Conversation
|
Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service. I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR ( |
| {% set version = "1.2.0" %} | ||
| {% set file_ext = "tar.gz" %} | ||
| {% set hash_type = "sha256" %} | ||
| {% set hash_value = "42b5dffc4023401148e9d2757f46a4a9fcccf114547a4620347ae45f9e77a21c" %} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should hash_type and hash_value be moved directly under the source section?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
probably best to just keep close to what conda skeleton spit out since that is one of the major things that the tick bot hits
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@CJ-Wright, can you clarify what is the optimal way to write the SHA256 sums? It looks like skeleton and example are conflicting with each other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For simple recipes we support both I think. The main issue is when we have multiple checksums in a single recipe, then the bot gets confused with the jinja2 method (since it doesn't know which checksum goes to which jinja2)
Lets double check with @justcalamari
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's correct. If there are multiple sources, the bot doesn't know which checksum the jinja2 variable is for, so it might replace it incorrectly. In this recipe where there is only one checksum, there is no ambiguity so the bot should be able to replace the jinja variable correctly.
It might be good practice to get rid of the jinja variables for hash_type and hash_value though, since there are certain cases where that breaks the bot and it doesn't seem like there's much of a reason to use the variables since they are only used once. I think @ocefpaf changed the example to remove jinja variables for checksum, but skeleton wasn't updated yet.
| host: | ||
| - python | ||
| - pip | ||
| - wrapt <2,>=1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I checked upstream's setup.py and it looks like wrapt is only an install requirement. Do we really need it in the host section?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let me remove that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems one of the modules does use it, readding
| license: MIT | ||
| license_family: MIT | ||
| # https://github.com/tantale/deprecated/pull/1 | ||
| # license_file: '' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you want to wait for the upstream PR to merged before merging into conda-forge?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can deal with adding it in post merge probably, but lets give it a day or two
mariusvniekerk
force-pushed
the
deprecated
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b8397db
to
81cefa9
Compare
No description provided.