Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

conda-smithy 3.23.0 #246

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 24, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 9 additions & 2 deletions recipe/meta.yaml
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
{% set version = "3.22.1" %}
{% set version = "3.23.0" %}

package:
name: conda-smithy
version: {{ version }}

source:
url: https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-smithy/releases/download/v{{ version }}/conda-smithy-{{ version }}.tar.gz
sha256: 7d8c766ced494aada59f56b2693411c212826c685b762b467d2070120d66c275
sha256: 6808967b9dc81bb42200441a7dc60e13492095db64ca53d4e21ce72119bb58a8

build:
number: 0
Expand All @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ requirements:
host:
- python >=3.6
- pip
- setuptools >=45
- setuptools-scm >=7
- tomli >=1.0.0
Comment on lines +26 to +28
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added these to line up with upstream build requirements included in this release

run:
- python >=3.6
- setuptools
Expand All @@ -42,6 +45,10 @@ requirements:
- scrypt
- license-expression
- libarchive
run_constrained:
# For more details about `shellcheck`, please see this issue.
# xref: https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-smithy-feedstock/issues/248
- shellcheck
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

run_constrained without a version here is a no-op right?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah it is more documentation than anything

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In that case, would a regular commented out dependency in the run section fulfil the same purpose? Or do you want it in the repodata, explicitly?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There was some support for doing this above ( #246 (comment) ). So had made this change

No strong feelings about other such changes

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we want to make a change here before merging or are we happy to merge?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm fine either way

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cool, let's merge then. If we decide to handle this another way, we can do that in a new PR


test:
imports:
Expand Down