Closed pradyunsg closed 2 years ago
No strong thoughts either way. Originally this was designed as a generic dependency resolution library, but I guess no many people really need fancy dependency resolution outside of the packaging community.
given that this is used by pip
There are a ton of things used by pip but not under PyPA though…
Agreed, if this is intended to be generic, putting it under PyPA is probably wrong. But if it is intended to be generic, the docs could do with making that clearer. The "Terminology" section in particular is very packaging-focused.
(I will say that I can't think immediately of a non-packaging use for this - maybe adding an example would be good?)
I think this is fairly closely related to pip/packaging use cases, but if folks feel otherwise, I don't mind withdrawing this suggestion.
Please feel free to close this, if that's the case. :)
Well, I'll close this out. :P
I think it makes sense to do this, given that this is used by pip.