More compatibility with pep425tags #213
Conversation
|
Comments are all stylistic. I will also say that I initially left the logging out as I wasn't sure how useful it would be since I didn't notice logging being used in 'packaging' itself. |
Hmm, maybe we should slightly change the API that |
|
@di yeah, if we are going to bother to include it I think it should be off since it's only helpful when debugging and with 'packaging' as a library I think it should be silent by default. |
Co-Authored-By: Brett Cannon <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Brett Cannon <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Brett Cannon <[email protected]>
di
force-pushed
the
more-pip-compatibility
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3116ef0
to
17a0fcd
Compare
di
force-pushed
the
more-pip-compatibility
branch
from
17a0fcd
to
c954607
Compare
| @@ -101,6 +105,16 @@ def parse_tag(tag): | |||
| return frozenset(tags) | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| def _get_config_var(name, warn=False): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So with this being false, how will this ever be true such that logging actually occurs? Is the assumption people will manually change locally when they need to? Or is it in case logging comes in the future for the whole the project or through some API?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, great point. I think what would be best is that users can turn on logging via an argument to sys_tags and this is propagated through. I feel like this would be easiest to integrate into pip and would have the least effect on other packaging.tags users. I added a commit which does this.
|
Thanks @di! ^>^ @brettcannon I merged on the assumption that you're OK with post-your-approval changes, and if you're not, we can iterate on/discuss reverting specific commits if needed (though I doubt that's the case here). :) |
|
@pradyunsg I'm fine with it. 😄 |
This PR adds logging around
get_config_varas mentioned here: pypa/pip#6908 (comment)It also fixes #171.
(cc @pradyunsg @cjerdonek)