On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Dhananjay Nene <dhananjay.n...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Saager Mhatre <saager.mha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sep 16, 2013 8:46 AM, "Dhananjay Nene" <dhananjay.n...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> let me state that while I pin requirements.txt > > > > To be just a little pedantic here- you pin version of dependencies, not > the > > entire requirements.txt. > > Matching the pedantic spirit => Look at the topic of the thread. It > could've just ended with a No. > > If you read other content here, I've talked about [...] > Dhananjay, I was being pedantic in general. That wasn't directed specifically at anyone in particular. > Just saying... 'cause, even though I may have > > myself used the phrase in previous responses on this thread, I personally > > prefer to specify dependencies in setup.py and avoid creating a separate > > requirements.txt file. > > Fair enough. A alternative valid on its own merit. > > > Either approach could very well be put down as a > > stylistic difference, > > No. A stylistic difference implies no non-aesthetic differences. Now that I reread that, I meant stylistic 'preference' not 'difference'. Either way, I was referring to my stylistic preference of specifying dependencies in setup.py over specifying them in requirements.txt. It is possible to pin direct as well as transitive dependencies in both approaches; which is what makes them only stylistically different. > but the specific compatibility of these approaches > > with different build tools (distutils, setuptools/easy_install, > > distribute/pip) makes it significant, IMHO. > > > > That is something I would be keen to understand. (Should be a separate > thread imo). Some other time... I don't feel like raging any more this month. Just finished my quota while mentoring the teams at in50Hrs this weekend. - d _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
