> On Apr 15, 2015, at 5:06 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > > Joe Gordon wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Chris Dent <chd...@redhat.com >> <mailto:chd...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, Joe Gordon wrote: >> deploy requirements - requirements.txt - which are meant to >> be *local >> to a deployment*, and are commonly expected to specify very >> narrow (or >> even exact fit) versions. >> >> Link to where this is documented? If this isn't written down >> anywhere, then >> that should be a pre-requisite to this conversation. Get upstream to >> document this. >> >> I don't know where it is documented but this was the common wisdom I >> knew from the Python community since long before coming to the >> OpenStack community. To me, seeing a requirements.txt in a repo that >> represents a class of an app or library (rather than an instance of >> a deployment) was quite a surprise. >> >> (This doesn't have that much bearing on the practical aspects of >> this conversation, just wanted to add some anecdata that the precedent >> described above is not weird or alien in any way.) >> >> https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/requirements.html >> >> Turns out it was easier then I thought to find the documentation for this. > > And the doc is indeed pretty clear. I assumed "requirements.txt" would > describe... well... requirements. But like Robert said they are meant to > describe specific deployments (should really be have been named > deployment.txt, or at least dependencies.txt). >
The name is just a convention. They can be named anything as far as pip is concerned. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
