Skip to content

Use interpreter_name and interpreter_version from packaging.tags #7562

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

Merged

Conversation

chrahunt
Copy link
Member

@chrahunt chrahunt commented Jan 6, 2020

packaging.tags provides utility functions for getting interpreter name and version, so use those instead of our own.

Progresses #6908. Split from #7354.

This reduces the amount of code we have to manage.

interpreter_name is calculated differently, defaulting to the
long name of the interpreter rather than "cp", but that is more
conformant.
@chrahunt chrahunt added type: refactor Refactoring code skip news Does not need a NEWS file entry (eg: trivial changes) labels Jan 6, 2020
@chrahunt chrahunt marked this pull request as ready for review January 7, 2020 00:20
Copy link
Member

@pradyunsg pradyunsg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure if the packaging.tags helpers have the exact same implementation but, this looks good to me. :)

@chrahunt chrahunt merged commit f526f13 into pypa:master Jan 7, 2020
@chrahunt chrahunt deleted the maint/use-packaging-tags-interpreter-functions branch January 7, 2020 06:39
@lock lock bot added the auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation label Feb 6, 2020
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 6, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation skip news Does not need a NEWS file entry (eg: trivial changes) type: refactor Refactoring code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants