Standardizing the ^ version specifier
See original GitHub issue- I have searched the issues of this repo and believe that this is not a duplicate.
- I have searched the documentation and believe that my question is not covered.
Issue
Would poetry’s maintainers be willing to help standardize the ^1.0.0
style version specifier, as a broader Python Packaging standard? Any indication on whether this is a priority or not?
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Reactions:2
- Comments:6 (6 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
PEP 440 – Version Identification and Dependency Specification
This PEP describes a scheme for identifying versions of Python software distributions, and declaring dependencies on particular versions. This document ...
Read more >Attribute specifier sequence(since C++11) - cppreference.com
Introduces implementation-defined attributes for types, objects, code, etc. [[ attr ]] [[ attr1, attr2, attr3 ...
Read more >2022-12 Mailing Available - Standard C++
The 2022-12 mailing of new standards papers is now available. WG21 Number, Title, Author, Document Date, Mailing Date, Previous Version, Subgroup. P0901R10 ...
Read more >Wildcards in purl? · Issue #84 · package-url/purl-spec - GitHub
In certain applications it would make sense to specify certain parts of purl's as intervals or wildcards. Examples: pkg:npm/foobar@12.3.
Read more >Installation Report - pip documentation v22.3.1
false if the requirements was provided as a name and version specifier. download_info : Information about the artifact (to be) downloaded for installation, ......
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Not strictly a priority but, ideally, it would be good to see it standardized, along with the
||
operator, to avoid cases like this:>=2.7,!=3.0.*,!=3.1.*,3.2.*,3.3.*,3.4.*
(it could be simplified to^2.7 || >=3.5
Oh, I won’t be driving this personally – it’s not a priority for me and not something that I personally care much about.
I’ve have had my understanding/opinion change around this operator FWIW, based on discussions with multiple folks, that the semantics of this are the wrong approach for code that claims to be a reusable chunk of code (i.e. library) but is fine/good for a non-reusable piece (i.e. application), but I digress.