-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 777
Update Makefile #5311
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
Update Makefile #5311
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! The packaging is heavily relying on the virtualenv and so the tooling consistency is the first idea that came to my mind here.
But what is our motivation behind replacing virtualenv with venv at least for the Makefile?
|
I believe that the Now that we're only supporting ST2 on Python 3, we should always have the 1 While I'm sure somebody in the Python community will create and maintain a |
|
How do we want to proceed here? I see the point and am a big fan of tooling consistency but @blag has a very good point and I don't see any real risk in switching to venv. Is there anything else that may help to make a final decision? |
arm4b
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
Forgot to follow up on this.
This PR updates the
Makefileto use Python 3'svenvmodule, and it fixes a few oversights made when addingblack.