David Hotham

@dadudadn what you are reporting is both (i) not what this issue describes - this is specifically about build requirements - and (ii) not a bug. Please read the FAQ...

And what if someone wants `NO_BINARY=:all: ONLY_BINARY=some_package`? Why is the proposed order of precedence better?

> pip seems to have same precedence poetry is not pip, pip is not a standard. Perhaps if you reported that example to pip, they'd treat it as a bug....

That sounds preferable to me, I would expect the treatment to be as near as possible symmetrical. But I will say that this is not a feature I expect ever...

`resolved_capabilities` is nothing to do with this project, what you have is a neovim configuration question. (looks like `resolved_capabilities` used to be a thing but isnt any more)

This is an anti-pattern, explicitly anti-recommended by pypa and deprecated at setuptools. I doubt that poetry should be adding support for this. Originally #890, more recently #8867

what do you propose should be done? Both `poetry`s are supposed to be there! If you want to use either one or the other then you had better say which...

there's the `pipx`-managed poetry which I suppose is your "main" poetry. And then there's the poetry that you added to your virtual environment when you typed `poetry add poetry` (ie...

The `pipx inject` method will work fine, it will do what `pipx` does, which is make changes to the `pipx`-managed poetry. If you are seeing it "not work" that's surely...

Accepting MRs is not within my power. I am confused by your confusion! but clearly it's real and perhaps others will experience the same, so if you think that a...