[GRASS-dev] dateutil dependency killing GRASS 7

[Glynn Clements]

Moritz Lennert wrote:

> >> Do you really have to remove it completely ? Can't you check for its
> >> presence and if not present fall back on the basic date version ? And
> >> put a hint in the manuals about its installation being strongly
> >> recommended ?
> >
> > Then it would become a /de facto/ mandatory dependency.
> >
> 
> Is it illegitimate to propose basic functionality, thus allowing the 
> user to use the modules, but forcing them to be more rigorous about date 
> format, etc, but offer the user a way to more "comfort" by installing an 
> additional dependency ?

It depends. If the end result is that people start sharing scripts or
distributing data files which only work if you have dateutil
installed, then it's a problem.

IMHO, there should be one "standard" for date formats. Either that
standard includes the formats which require dateutil to parse, in
which case dateutil is a mandatory dependency, or it doesn't, in which
case data which doesn't conform to the standard format should at a
minimum result in a visible warning.

Simply documenting the standard format while silently accepting
non-standard data is asking for trouble.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>