Interest in supporting PEP 665?

What’s the problem this feature will solve?

Standardizing on a file format that fixes some shortcomings of requirements files.

Describe the solution you’d like

Two possibilities.

One, pip freeze emits PEP 665 files.

Two, -r (or some new option) can read in and install from a PEP 665 file.

Alternative Solutions

Status quo.

Additional context

https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-665-take-2-a-file-format-to-list-python-dependencies-for-reproducibility-of-an-application/11736

I’m basically looking for tool support to quote in the PEP at this point to help drive its support/acceptance.

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow the PSF Code of Conduct.

[pradyunsg]

That aside, it’s not like requirements.txt is going away anytime soon – so there’s no reason for the lockfile to accomodate for all the potential ways that pip allows you to do things. Starting with a subset and expanding is fine IMO.

[brettcannon]

First, thanks for the vote of support on the PEP (for those that aren’t co-authors 😉).

Second, for pip resolve, an open issue on the PEP is whether the input for the lock file should be standardized (or at least have at least one way to have a default) and I’m happy to discuss on discuss.python.org.