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
Closed

Requirements 2.0 #1795

dstufft opened this issue May 6, 2014 · 9 comments
Labels
auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation

Comments

@dstufft
Copy link
Member

dstufft 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
Copy link

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
Copy link
Member Author

dstufft commented Feb 2, 2015

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

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

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

@dstufft
Copy link
Member Author

dstufft 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
Copy link
Contributor

updating the readme to reflect the concepts

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

work is underway!

@dstufft
Copy link
Member Author

dstufft commented Mar 30, 2017

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

@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member

@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
Copy link
Member Author

dstufft commented Jun 29, 2017

Yea.

@dstufft dstufft closed this as completed Jun 29, 2017
@lock lock bot added the auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation label Jun 3, 2019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.
Labels
auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants