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
--ignore-installed and dependency resolution #5046
Comments
/ping @pfmoore @dstufft @xavfernandez |
Not sure what you're asking. Why does When the new resolver comes in, I think it would be useful to have some use case directed documentation covering how to handle various common scenarios, rather than just a list of options that we leave people to combine as best they can. |
Basically, I'm going through "figure out the option mess" phase, so, the situation you describe is exactly what I'm trying to break down and simplify. I guess if nothing else, good documentation sounds like a good idea. The motivation being that every subtly different behaviour should have a separate class, which means a lot of subtly different behaviours would result in a lot of code. I guess the only way to figure out what to do here is to actually spend time going through everything. |
Ah, OK. I think So I think the only use cases I see for |
I don't think there's a valid use case for |
Combining |
I tried looking for why it was introduced but I couldn't figure out why it was added through the git history. It seems to have been around there since at least pip 0.6.
I'm pretty sure I can implement a Provider to preserve the behavior that it's asking for. I'm actually wondering if this option is in fact relevant once a resolver is added?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: