Update conda recipe to be more like conda-forge feedstock#661
Update conda recipe to be more like conda-forge feedstock#661forsyth2 merged 1 commit intoE3SM-Project:mainfrom
Conversation
TestingI did a test build of |
| build: | ||
| number: 0 | ||
| script: "{{ PYTHON }} -m pip install . --no-deps -vv" | ||
| script: {{ PYTHON }} -m pip install . --no-deps --no-build-isolation -vv |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is best to not allow pip to install missing build dependencies from PyPI (which is what --no-build-isolation does).
The quotes are not needed.
| entry_points: | ||
| - zppy = zppy.__main__:main |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Entry points no longer need to be defined in conda recipes and removing them removes one more maintenance step we would otherwise have to do.
| requirements: | ||
| host: | ||
| - python >=3.9 | ||
| - python {{ python_min }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here and below, conda-forge has moved to defining python_min (3.9 by default) and ensuring that the package bets built and tested with this minimum version. The idea is that thing tend to break more often when we only test with the newest python than when we only test with the oldest. See https://github.com/conda-forge/cfep/blob/main/cfep-25.md for details.
| - python >=3.9 | ||
| - python {{ python_min }} | ||
| - pip | ||
| - setuptools |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
zppy gets installed with setuptools so this is a necessary dependency. It used to get bundled with pip but that is no longer the case.
| @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ | |||
| {% set name = "zppy" %} | |||
| {% set version = "3.0.0rc1" %} | |||
| {% set python_min = "3.9" %} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs to be defined here but is set automatically as part of the infrastructure on conda-forge feedstocks.
|
@xylar Thanks for working on this!
Great, I see 3.0.0rc1 on https://anaconda.org/conda-forge/zppy/files. Was that created using this code, or do I need to merge this and make a Also, perhaps I should have made the PR template clearer (#658), but my intention was if it was a small change, one could likely ignore most of the checkboxes (the numbered sections are sub-headings of "Big Change") |
No, neither. This change is just for convenience and will not be tested anywhere. I would suggest you merge it before we make rc2 (assuming we do) but no additional work or testing is required. |
Oh, that definitely wasn't clear to me. I would suggest adding a comment to that effect to the template. But, yes, that makes a lot more sense now! |
2 participants
Issue resolution
Select one: This pull request is...
Please fill out either the "Small Change" or "Big Change" section, and delete the other.
Small Change