Support multiple python_version

[antoine-de]

Hi,

I would like to support multiple python_version (more exactly, I want to support python 3.5 and 3.6, but there is a problem with python 3.5.2 on a sub dependency, so I would like the support >3.5.2) and I can't find the right way to define this.

In the documentation it says Pipenv automatically honors both the python_full_version and python_version PEP 508 specifiers. but I don't seems to be able to express it:

in my pipenv I put:

[requires]
python_full_version = ">3.5.2"

> pipenv install
Warning: Your Pipfile requires python_version >3.5.2, but you are using 3.5.3 (/home/a/.local/share/v/a/bin/python)

I see that request does not define the required python version, it seems to be done in travis. Is it the right way to do this ?

[techalchemy]

This is a good suggestion, we should be able to implement this fairly easily

[gsemet]

+1

[kennethreitz]

no

[gsemet]

it would help a lot

[isobit]

@kennethreitz I (and hopefully others here) would appreciate further explanation than just "no". This seems like such an obvious feature, especially since the documentation explicitly says pipenv supports the PEP 508 specifiers.

[kennethreitz]

you're asking a lot out of me, and i've already put a tremendous amount of time into this, and it's a holiday right now. patience is a virtue.

[gsemet]

that's because we love pipenv :) But i think this will help the adoption of pipfile/pipenv for some libraries or application, especially if one want to support Python 3.5+

[kennethreitz]

it will be considered

…

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Gaetan Semet ***@***.***> wrote: that's because we love pipenv :) But i think this will help the adoption of pipfile/pipenv for some libraries or application, especially if one want to support Python 3.5+ — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/kennethreitz/pipenv/issues/1050#issuecomment-346448207>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHUVc2MSERTYmXgwbnh8wD4qAInLE__ks5s5HM8gaJpZM4QYD9C> .

[isobit]

I'm not asking for anything other than an explanation for why the issue was closed. I appreciate the huge effort you've put in and I totally understand that things like this aren't going to be implemented overnight. However, when the issue is just closed like this, the signal I get as a user is that this will never get fixed, so I was curious as to why.