You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The package is pinned twice with different versions and pipenv install merrily installs one of them based on whether or not --dev is used.
While looking at it a bit more I tested adding Django (this time not as an extra) with "~=2.0.2" in [dev-packages], it had the same kind of result.
This causing an unsatisfiable constraint would more sense to me at the moment. I think of [dev-packages] as being for development/testing related tools which are added on top of the environment specified in [packages], but that doesn't seem to be how things are handled at the moment.
At least for my case it was as simple as dropping the extra, but it took more poking around than I'd have liked. I think I would be happier if there was at a message at some point to highlight to that things may not be as the user expects.
Should [dev-packages] have the same constraints as [packages]? I am wondering if this is a side effect of something that is unreasonable to change, or if it is just odd behaviour that can be improved.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I originally made this issue as I had Django pinned in
[packages]
but also as an extra[dev-packages]
:And the resulting
Pipfile.lock
:The package is pinned twice with different versions and
pipenv install
merrily installs one of them based on whether or not--dev
is used.While looking at it a bit more I tested adding Django (this time not as an extra) with
"~=2.0.2"
in[dev-packages]
, it had the same kind of result.This causing an unsatisfiable constraint would more sense to me at the moment. I think of
[dev-packages]
as being for development/testing related tools which are added on top of the environment specified in[packages]
, but that doesn't seem to be how things are handled at the moment.At least for my case it was as simple as dropping the extra, but it took more poking around than I'd have liked. I think I would be happier if there was at a message at some point to highlight to that things may not be as the user expects.
Should
[dev-packages]
have the same constraints as[packages]
? I am wondering if this is a side effect of something that is unreasonable to change, or if it is just odd behaviour that can be improved.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: