Skip to content

Attempt to clarify environment marker evaluation#1988

Merged
pradyunsg merged 17 commits into
pypa:mainfrom
ncoghlan:clarify-environment-marker-comparisons
May 18, 2026
Merged

Attempt to clarify environment marker evaluation#1988
pradyunsg merged 17 commits into
pypa:mainfrom
ncoghlan:clarify-environment-marker-comparisons

Conversation

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ncoghlan ncoghlan commented Jan 10, 2026

Preparation for the release of packaging 25.1 revealed multiple deficiencies in the specification of environment marker evaluation. Review of the proposed amendments to resolve those deficiencies highlighted multiple other problems, including some dating from the original PEP 508 specification:

  • other pages still referencing PEP 508 instead of the living spec
  • direct reference to PEP 685 instead of the core metadata spec
  • the "extra" special case not being properly defined
  • lacking guidance to tool developers regarding what should be considered errors to disallow entirely vs issues to work around

Inspired by the initial PR at #1971

discuss.python.org thread: https://discuss.python.org/t/spec-change-bugfix-dependency-specifiers-simplification-pep-508


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://python-packaging-user-guide--1988.org.readthedocs.build/en/1988/

ncoghlan and others added 2 commits January 10, 2026 16:33
Preparation for the release of packaging 25.1 revealed multiple
deficiencies in the specification of environment marker evaluation.
Review of the proposed amendments to resolve those deficiencies
highlighted multiple other problems, including some dating from the
original PEP 508 specification:

* other pages still referencing PEP 508 instead of the living spec
* direct reference to PEP 685 instead of the core metadata spec
* the "extra" special case not being properly defined
* lacking guidance to tool developers regarding what should be
  considered errors to disallow entirely vs issues to work around

Inspired by the initial PR at pypa#1971
Comment thread source/specifications/dependency-specifiers.rst
Comment thread source/specifications/dependency-specifiers.rst Outdated
Comment thread source/specifications/dependency-specifiers.rst Outdated
Comment thread source/specifications/dependency-specifiers.rst Outdated
Comment thread source/specifications/dependency-specifiers.rst Outdated
@ncoghlan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

ncoghlan commented Mar 2, 2026

@henryiii Finally got back to updating this for my own comments and yours.

@webknjaz @pradyunsg I think this is finally ready for a merge review.

@pradyunsg pradyunsg enabled auto-merge May 10, 2026 22:52
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@konstin konstin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The extras thing we should fix to avoid confusing people.

Comment thread source/specifications/dependency-specifiers.rst Outdated
Comment thread source/specifications/dependency-specifiers.rst Outdated
Comment thread source/specifications/dependency-specifiers.rst Outdated
@pradyunsg pradyunsg added this pull request to the merge queue May 18, 2026
Merged via the queue into pypa:main with commit a9b1f5e May 18, 2026
7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants