Replace poetry dependencies specification with PEP 621

[spwoodcock]

Issue

When installing python-calamine into my project via pyproject.toml on Python 3.12 and using PDM, I was getting the following error:

File "/path/to/packages/python_calamine/pandas.py", line 8, in <module>
from packaging.version import Version, parse
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'packaging'

Cause

• Poetry uses it's own non-standard syntax for dependencies (as it was developed first):

  [tool.poetry.dependencies]
  requests = "^2.13.0"

• Since then PEP 621 has been accepted, and the standard way to declare dependencies:

  [project]
  # ...
  dependencies = [
      "requests (>=2.23.0,<3.0.0)"
  ]

• Further details: https://python-poetry.org/docs/main/dependency-specification/#projectdependencies-and-toolpoetrydependencies
• For some reason I didn't get an error on Python 3.10 or 3.11, but this appeared on 3.12 🤷
• The packaging dependency is not picked up by my dependency solver, and hence not installed at the same time as python-calamine.

Solution

• Replace Poetry specific syntax with standard PEP 621 syntax.
• Specifying python as a dependency is not longer required, as this is covered by requires-python: https://peps.python.org/pep-0621/#requires-python
• Hopefully this change should mean that packaging is correctly installed alongside python-calamine.

Note I didn't replace the [tool.poetry.group.dev.dependencies] with anything, as this is built tool specific. If this project uses poetry to manage other dependency groups then that is absolutely fine.

[dimastbk]

Thanks!

[spwoodcock]

Thank you for these bindings!

[spwoodcock]

Also, I might have been a bit hasty specifying a pin like ~= and didn't really think through the long term implications.

I think installable packages should always be pinned with >= for maximum flexibility (we shouldn't assume that compatibility will break over time & leave the decision to upgrade to the upstream package installer).

Sorry to be a pain: should we change to packaging>=xxx?

[dimastbk]

Sorry to be a pain: should we change to packaging>=xxx?

Yes.