BLD: add missing dependency on packaging
#615
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rgommers
added
the
maintenance
We were relying on `pyproject-metadata` adding a `packaging` dependency implicitly. We use it directly though, so should add it in our own metadata. We have no particular version requirements beyond what is needed by `pyproject-metadata`, so we add the same >=19.0 constraint.
rgommers
force-pushed
the
add-packaging-dependency
branch
from
cb9a4ba to
6ff5a2d
Compare
|
Not critical for 0.16.0 I'd say, but it also can't hurt to include it. Happy either way. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We were relying on
pyproject-metadataadding apackagingdependency implicitly. We use it directly though, so should add it in our own metadata. We have no particular version requirements beyond what is needed bypyproject-metadata, so we add the same >=19.0 constraint.This follows up on #612 (comment)