Filipe Laíns 🇵🇸
Filipe Laíns 🇵🇸
I am still missing the logic to generate the editable wheel. Let me see if I am still able to finish that up today.
This should be fixed now that editable installs are implemented. I think all workflows issues are fixed by using editable installs, which do not have this issue. ``` Python 3.10.8...
Hum, I think we should be doing that, since our sdist is derived from `meson dist`. We will need to check.
I have let this sink in a bit more and thought about it. The only slight worry I have with this approach, is that the wheels will not be necessarily...
Okay, after spending quite some time with it, I think a viable option would be to follow the normal requirement specification format, but using the `@` as a placeholder for...
> This can be expressed in the `pyproject.toml` like this: > > ```toml > [build-system] > requires = [ > 'A ~= X' > ] > ``` No, it'd have...
You can add a local version identifier to differentiate it, that will give you a different wheel name, allowing you to upload it. Supporting uploading different wheels with the same...
> Quick first question: what happens with version specifiers like `.dev0` and `rc1` when you do something like `'>=@.@.@'`? Nothing. `>=@.@.@` for `1.2.3.4.5` translates to `>=1.2.3`, if you want to...
> Distributing wheel with the same version but different content is IMHO a very bad idea. I disagree, there's a point you simply cannot provide all the compatibility details in...
The idea would be for this to provide extra dependency constrains, not to replace `project.dependencies`. `build-system.requires` is separate.