On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:55:17 -0500, "R. David Murray" <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote: > What about specifying that the package works only with, say, 2.6.2 or > earlier (because of some problem introduced by 2.6.3)? That could get > pretty darn verbose. (Also remember we aren't just talking about the > syntax for Python versions, but versions for any package). That's why the range operator could be good. > Requires-python: 2.4:2.6.2 > I do think it is also a valid argument that, from what I've heard here, > most extant (linux at least) packaging systems use the >=, etc, operators, > so I think talking about changing the proposed syntax radically is > probably misplaced. The counter argument for 'cloning' the linux packaging system is that most of the representations come from a C perspective. Because of the fact that Linux is predominantly a C product. Since Python isn't C, and doesn't come from C, then one could argue that using short-hand or high level notation is more in keeping with the character of python. So the arguments against the >= == operators come from the desire to keep what looks like C code, *out-of* python packaging. I fully sympathise that some have the desire simply to clone what's already out there. Why make new art when there's a lot of old art already.. The price of doing that is we lose the specific short-handed high-level nature of python. Which is what we were attracted to in the first place. David
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4