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

Requirements 2.0 #1795

Closed
dstufft opened this issue May 6, 2014 · 9 comments

Comments

@dstufft
Copy link
Member

commented May 6, 2014

A general ticket to start defining what requirements 2.0 looks like and to figure out what the requirements are for such a new file.

@piotr-dobrogost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 21, 2014

Interesting question seems to be to what degree semantics of the process of installation of requirements should be defined in this specification. Compare issue #56 and issue #278 for example.

@dstufft

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 2, 2015

Here are two gists I made previously that sketched out some ideas I had around a new requirements format:

@kennethreitz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 18, 2016

I am interested in helping come up with the names of these new files (and possibly the names of the api components).

@dstufft

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Nov 18, 2016

I created pypa/pipfile to provide a place to begin work on this, since ideally this would be a library that pip can consume so that people other than pip can parse these files too.

@kennethreitz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 19, 2016

updating the readme to reflect the concepts

@kennethreitz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 27, 2016

work is underway!

@dstufft

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 30, 2017

See #3772 for a case that we should handle better with requirements 2.0 (if we're not already).

@pradyunsg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 29, 2017

@dstufft Can we close this?

pipfile's issue tracker and pypa-dev (not distutils-sig :3) should be the right places to discuss this; correct?

@dstufft

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jun 29, 2017

Yea.

@dstufft dstufft closed this Jun 29, 2017

@lock lock bot added the S: auto-locked label Jun 3, 2019

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 3, 2019

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.