Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Note that download_url should not be used #264

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

@odinho
Copy link

odinho commented Aug 15, 2016

I used a lot of time barking up that tree, only to find out it's not meant to be set.
Primarily because the python setuptools docs contain it.

Some background info in pypa/setuptools_scm#95

I used a lot of time barking up that tree, only to find out it's not meant to be set.
Primarily because the python setuptools docs contain it.
@theacodes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

theacodes commented Apr 6, 2017

I like the idea of this, but I'm curious on whether we should just start a new section on discouraged setup.py arguments. I doubt this is the only one.

@jwodder

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jwodder commented Apr 9, 2017

I believe the requires, provides, and obsoletes arguments are similarly discouraged. requires dates from a pre-PyPI & setuptools time and has now been replaced by install_requires. provides and obsoletes don't seem to have ever been used by anything, and there are apparently security/trust issues that prevent even trying to do anything with them.

I'm not sure if platforms is discouraged, but its functionality has definitely never been fully worked out.

dependency_links itself isn't deprecated, but pip's support for it definitely is.

@theacodes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

theacodes commented Apr 9, 2017

@ncoghlan what are you thoughts on a separate section/topic on discouraged/deprecated setup args? I'm leaning towards closing this and tracking that in an issue so we can get consensus around everything we want to discourage.

@ncoghlan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ncoghlan commented Apr 9, 2017

@jonparrott That sounds sensible to me, especially as such an issue could be handled across multiple PRs, starting with the ones that aren't controversial, and then moving on to the less clearcut ones.

@theacodes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

theacodes commented Apr 10, 2017

Closing in favor of #293 to more comprehensively document this stuff.

@theacodes theacodes closed this Apr 10, 2017
ofek added a commit to ofek/hatch that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.