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

pip-sync --keep-existing #1206

Closed
graingert opened this issue Aug 28, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

pip-sync --keep-existing #1206

graingert opened this issue Aug 28, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@graingert
Copy link
Member

graingert commented Aug 28, 2020

#1166
pypa/pip#53

What's the problem this feature will solve?

I've enabled #1166 which works great to remind people to upgrade their packages - but some people add additional local packages but don't add them to the requirements.txt

Describe the solution you'd like

a pip-sync --keep-existing flag that worked with pip-sync --keep-existing --dry-run to behave in the same way as the proposed pypa/pip#53

Alternative Solutions

  • a requirements-dev-specific.txt in .gitignore for additional deps?
  • I could just wait for them to do it in pip directly

Additional context

pip-sync --keep-existing is kind-of odd without --dry-run as it's exactly the same as pip install -r requirements.txt

@AndydeCleyre
Copy link
Contributor

Can you please state more specifically what pip-sync --keep-existing and pip-sync --keep-existing --dry-run are expected to do, and what the initial problem is?

Is the behavior you're after the same as currently achieved with pip-sync --dry-run <shared.txt> <personal.txt>?

@graingert
Copy link
Member Author

Is the behavior you're after the same as currently achieved with pip-sync --dry-run <shared.txt> <personal.txt>?

Ooh I think so - is there a way to ignore the <personal.txt> file if it's missing?

@AndydeCleyre
Copy link
Contributor

That's probably easiest (best?) handled by shell globbing/scripting, and a file naming convention. What do you think?

@graingert
Copy link
Member Author

Yeah that's probably better

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants