PEP 722: Dependency specification for single-file scripts

[pradyunsg (Pradyun Gedam)]

I finally found the time to read this PEP. Unsurprisingly, it’s well-written.

@pf_moore

If I do that, I’ll probably also include a reference implementation of a client function to read a dependency block from a script - it’s not hard, and it allows me to be explicit about the validation.

IMO, that (= requiring/recommending validation) is a good idea.

@brettcannon

@BrenBarn

My point is not really that the format is the same, it’s that people will see them as the same and be confused that they are actually different, because people will want to use them to do similar things.

I think this is an argument to not use “Requirements” and switch to something like “Dependencies” to fully disassociate from requirements files.

I agree, and I do prefer that the keyword/marker be named “Dependencies”, rather than “Requirements” – primarily because that’s better in line with [project.dependencies] as well, and I’d like for the user-facing standards to use a consistent vocabulary. Looking at the implementations, it shouldn’t be too difficult in pipx or pip-run to change the keyword/marker either (or to allow one-or-the-other).

This is a naming question, so you could argue that I’m asking that this bikeshed be painted differently. IMO, this is not bikeshed-style concern and rather about having a consistent UX.

---

PS: I wouldn’t be opposed to having a single shared implementation of this PEP live in packaging (assuming other packaging maintainers are on board, of course).