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

setup.cfg: more_itertools dropped support for python 2.7 with release 6.0 #11

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dankegel
Copy link

Fixes #10

Verified that with python 2.7 and 3.6.7, pip install --user -e . installed the expected compatible version of more-itertools.

@dankegel
Copy link
Author

The failures are because the existing code isn't indented properly, and you can see the proper version of more-itertools getting installed now, so the failures are spurious with respect to this merge request.

@jaraco
Copy link
Owner

jaraco commented Mar 21, 2019

The failures are because the existing code isn't indented properly

Actually, tabs are allowed. The issue is with PyCQA/pycodestyle#836. I've merged the workaround and I'll close and re-open the PR to test against latest master.

@jaraco jaraco closed this Mar 21, 2019
@jaraco jaraco reopened this Mar 21, 2019
@jaraco
Copy link
Owner

jaraco commented Mar 21, 2019

I think the proper fix is to use installers that recognize valid Python versions. Accepting this change implies that every other project that depends on more_itertools would need to do the same, and moreover every package that depends on every other package would need to do the same when the other package drops support for Python 3. Instead, the packaging infrastructure has put in place a means to declare and solicit packages associated with the correct Python versions. That's probably the best approach. Otherwise, there's a combinatorial explosion of these sorts of workarounds.

So I'm disinclined to accept it. Thoughts?

@jaraco
Copy link
Owner

jaraco commented Mar 21, 2019

As you can see, tests pass without this PR.

@jaraco
Copy link
Owner

jaraco commented Mar 22, 2019

After further consideration in the parent ticket, the change here and the changes that would imply if extended to the ecosystem are simply unsustainable. A more systemic approach is going to be needed, so let's avoid adding this band-aid here.

@jaraco jaraco closed this Mar 22, 2019
@dankegel
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the review.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants