Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the case of eggs you couldn't count on having the metadata until you ran setup.py which forced pip to be unreliable because so much stuff got installed and uninstalled in the process of a build. There is a need for a complete answer for dev and private builds, I'll grant that. Private repos like we are used to in maven would help.
Eggs did not contain setup.py files. The metadata like for wheels was embedded in the egg (in the EGG-INFO folder) from my recollection. Eggs were zip importable after all.
Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
11–20 of 26 posts
Re: Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
#12A lot of the problem seems to be driven by a desire to have editable installs. I personally have never understood why having editable installs is such an important need. When I'm working on a Python package and need to test something, I just run python -m pip install --user and I now have a local installation that I can use for testing.
That would you require to make re-installations if your local app you develop against after every code change. Very few people will want to do that and it’s potentially very slow. It’s also a step not needed by most other ecosystems.
Potentially, perhaps. But it's certainly not for the cases where I use it: a pure python package, whose dependencies are already installed and are not changing (only the package itself is). Under those conditions, the command line I gave takes a couple of seconds to run.
Re: Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
#13A lot of the problem seems to be driven by a desire to have editable installs. I personally have never understood why having editable installs is such an important need. When I'm working on a Python package and need to test something, I just run python -m pip install --user and I now have a local installation that I can use for testing.
That would you require to make re-installations if your local app you develop against after every code change. Very few people will want to do that and it’s potentially very slow. It’s also a step not needed by most other ecosystems.
From what I can gather, most other ecosystems don't even have the problem under discussion.
Re: Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
#14A lot of the problem seems to be driven by a desire to have editable installs. I personally have never understood why having editable installs is such an important need. When I'm working on a Python package and need to test something, I just run python -m pip install --user and I now have a local installation that I can use for testing.
That would you require to make re-installations if your local app you develop against after every code change. Very few people will want to do that and it’s potentially very slow. It’s also a step not needed by most other ecosystems.
Re: Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would you require to make re-installations if your local app you develop against after every code change. Very few people will want to do that and it’s potentially very slow. It’s also a step not needed by most other ecosystems.
> it’s potentially very slow. Potentially, perhaps. But it's certainly not for the cases where I use it: a pure python package, whose dependencies are already installed and are not changing (only the package itself is). Under those conditions, the command line I gave takes a couple of seconds to run.
Re: Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would you require to make re-installations if your local app you develop against after every code change. Very few people will want to do that and it’s potentially very slow. It’s also a step not needed by most other ecosystems.
> it’s potentially very slow. Potentially, perhaps. But it's certainly not for the cases where I use it: a pure python package, whose dependencies are already installed and are not changing (only the package itself is). Under those conditions, the command line I gave takes a couple of seconds to run.
Re: Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
#17Eggs are dying out, pointed out by this 2 year old blog post: https://about.scarf.sh/post/python-wheels-vs-eggs The metadata problem is related to the problem that pip had an unsound resolution algorithm based on "try to resolve something optimistically and hope it works when you get stuck and try to backtrack". I did a lot of research along the line that led to uv 5 years ago and came to the conclusion that installi…
Re: Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s potentially very slow. Potentially, perhaps. But it's certainly not for the cases where I use it: a pure python package, whose dependencies are already installed and are not changing (only the package itself is). Under those conditions, the command line I gave takes a couple of seconds to run.
I.e. orders of magnitude longer
Re: Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s potentially very slow. Potentially, perhaps. But it's certainly not for the cases where I use it: a pure python package, whose dependencies are already installed and are not changing (only the package itself is). Under those conditions, the command line I gave takes a couple of seconds to run.
That iteration loop is pure madness.
Re: Constraints Are Good: Python's Metadata Dilemma
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eggs did not contain setup.py files. The metadata like for wheels was embedded in the egg (in the EGG-INFO folder) from my recollection. Eggs were zip importable after all.
It looks like you can embed dependency data in an egg but it is also true that (1) a lot of eggs have an internal setup.py that does things like compile C code, and (2) it's a hassle for developers on some platforms who might not have the right C installed, and (3) eggs reserve the right to decide what dependencies they include when they are installed based on the environment and such.
These days you need toml to parse pyproject.toml, and there's not a parser in the Python standard library for TOML: https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/writing-pyproj...
pip's docs strongly prefer project.toml: https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/reference/build-system/pyproje...
Over setup.py's setup(,setup_requires=[], install_requires=[]) https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/reference/build-system/setup-p...
Blaze and Bazel have Skylark/Starlark to support procedural build configuration with maintainable conditionals
Bazel docs > Starlark > Differences with Python: https://bazel.build/rules/language
cibuildwheel: https://github.com/pypa/cibuildwheel ;
> Builds manylinux, musllinux, macOS 10.9+ (10.13+ for Python 3.12+), and Windows wheels for CPython and PyPy;
manylinux used to specify a minimum libc version for each build tag like manylinux2 or manylinux2014; pypa/manylinux: https://github.com/pypa/manylinux#manylinux
A manylinux_x_y wheel requires glibc>=x.y. A musllinux_x_y wheel requires musl libc>=x.y; per PEP 600: https://github.com/mayeut/pep600_compliance#distro-compatibi...
> Works on GitHub Actions, Azure Pipelines, Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, GitLab CI, and Cirrus CI;
Further software supply chain security controls: SLSA.dev provenance, Sigstore, and the new PyPI attestations storage too
> Bundles shared library dependencies on Linux and macOS through `auditwheel` and `delocate`
delvewheel (Windows) is similar to auditwheel (Linux) and delocate (Mac) in that it copies DLL files into the wheel: https://github.com/adang1345/delvewheel
> Runs your library's tests against the wheel-installed version of your library
Conda runs tests of installed packages;
Conda docs > Defining metadata (meta.yaml) https://docs.conda.io/projects/conda-build/en/latest/resourc... :
> If this section exists or if there is a `run_test.[py,pl,sh,bat,r]` file in the recipe, the package is installed into a test environment after the build is finished and the tests are run there.
Things that support conda meta.yml declarative package metadata: conda and anaconda, mamba and mambaforge, picomamba and emscripten-forge, pixi / uv, repo2docker REES, and probably repo2jupyterlite (because jupyterlite's jupyterlite-xeus docs mention mamba but not yet picomamba) https://jupyterlite.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howto/configure...
The `setup.py test` command has been removed: https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/1684
`pip install -e .[tests]` expects extras_require['tests'] to include the same packages as the tests_require argument to setup.py: https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/267
TODO: is there a new one command to run tests like `setup.py test`?
`make test` works with my editor. A devcontainers.json can reference a Dockerfile that runs something like this:
python -m ensurepip && python -m pip install -U pip setuptools
But then still I want to run the tests of the software with one command.Are you telling me there's a way to do an HTTPS Content Range request for the toml file in a wheel for the package dependency version constraints and/or package hashes (but not GPG pubkey fingerprints to match .asc manifest signature) and the build & test commands, but you still need an additional file in addition to the TOML syntax pyproject.toml like Pipfile.lock or poetry.lock to store the hashes for each ~bdist wheel on each platform, though there's now a -c / PIP_CONSTRAINT option to specify an additional requirements.txt but that doesn't solve for windows or mac only requirements in a declarative requirements.txt? https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/user_guide/#constraints-files
conda supports putting `[win]` at the end of a YAML list item if it's for windows only.
Re: optimizing builds for conda-forge (and PyPI (though PyPI doesn't build packages (when there's a new PR, and then sign each build for each platform))) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41306658