Closed skearnes closed 2 years ago
Merging #630 (ef95ecd) into main (e51ca0b) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #630 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 64.50% 64.50%
=======================================
Files 16 16
Lines 1854 1854
Branches 497 497
=======================================
Hits 1196 1196
Misses 556 556
Partials 102 102
@connorcoley: should we create a conda package instead of a pypi package to preserve the conda rdkit installation path? I'm a bit concerned about possible conflicts between conda rdkit and rdkit-pypi if we expect most people are still following the recommended installation path; see https://github.com/rdkit/rdkit/issues/1812#issuecomment-1153095189.
@connorcoley @ipendlet after some digging I find myself thinking that we should provide both conda and pypi packages. That said, if we have to pick one to start with, conda might be a better path since that will avoid issues like this one: https://github.com/kuelumbus/rdkit-pypi/issues/48. WDYT?
@connorcoley @ipendlet after some digging I find myself thinking that we should provide both conda and pypi packages. That said, if we have to pick one to start with, conda might be a better path since that will avoid issues like this one: kuelumbus/rdkit-pypi#48. WDYT?
@connorcoley @ipendlet I think this question might become moot if rdkit-pypi
is renamed to rdkit
though.
@connorcoley @ipendlet I thought of a workaround for the conda/pip issues prior to any renaming. I'll use the extras_require logic to only install rdkit-pypi if explicitly requested and update the readme to indicate that you should only use that if you haven't installed rdkit already via conda.
requirements.txt
into setup.py for automatic handling with pip.Resolves #629