Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uv: Running a script with dependencies

docs.astral.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 174 posts

Re: Uv: Running a script with dependencies

#31

Post by patcon »

tczMUFlmoNk wrote: post #22
tayloramurphy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, who doesn't love requests?

Well... maybe the people who have stopped working on it due to the mysterious disappearance of 30,000 fundraised dollars, selling paid support but "delegat[ing] the actual work to unpaid volunteers", and a pattern of other issues from other community members who have not spoken up about them. https://vorpus.org/blog/why-im-not-collaborating-with-kennet... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19826680

> he said his original goal was just to raise $5k to buy a computer. Privately, I was skeptical that the $5k computer had anything to do with Requests. Requests is a small pure-Python library; if you want to work on it, then any cheap laptop is more than sufficient. $5k is the price of a beefy server or top-end gaming rig.

Kenneth Reitz has probably done more to enrich my life than most anyone else who builds things. I wouldn't begrudge him the idea of a nice workstation for his years of labour. Yeah, he's very imperfect, but the author has absolutely lost me

Re: Uv: Running a script with dependencies

#34

Post by bb88 »

SafeDusk wrote: post #30

I am using this feature in my MCP servers and it is a god send! Some details on how I do it can be found at https://blog.toolkami.com/toolkami-shttp-server/ .

There's a lot of small one off things where deploying uv and the script makes it easy to use. A lot of use cases for golang can be replaced with uv.

Re: Uv: Running a script with dependencies

#35

Post by bb88 »

Humphrey wrote: post #9

Oh this looks amazing! I had pretty much stopped using Python for my one-off scripts because of the hassle of dependencies. I can't wait to try this out.

I've played with it for a while now, and for one off scripts where python might make more sense than bash, e.g., I write the script this way with uv, and then I only need uv and the script.

One of the complaints about python is that a script stops working over time (because the python installation changes with os updates), and this kinda sorta doesn't make it go away entirely, but what it does do is to eliminate a bunch of the hassle to getting things to work.

Re: Uv: Running a script with dependencies

#36

Post by bb88 »

patcon wrote: post #31
tczMUFlmoNk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... maybe the people who have stopped working on it due to the mysterious disappearance of 30,000 fundraised dollars, selling paid support but "delegat[ing] the actual work to unpaid volunteers", and a pattern of other issues from other community members who have not spoken up about them. https://vorpus.org/blog/why-im-not-collaborating-with-kennet... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19826680

> he said his original goal was just to raise $5k to buy a computer. Privately, I was skeptical that the $5k computer had anything to do with Requests. Requests is a small pure-Python library; if you want to work on it, then any cheap laptop is more than sufficient. $5k is the price of a beefy server or top-end gaming rig. Kenneth Reitz has probably done more to enrich my life than most anyone else who builds things.…

Kenneth Reitz has been good and bad at times. And while things of his are genius level, he also has done asshole level things. But on the other hand, we get that with a lot of geniuses for some reason or another. Really smart people can be really dumb too.

It would be like saying, "Don't use Laplace transforms because he did some unsavory thing at some point in time."

Re: Uv: Running a script with dependencies

#38

Post by roywiggins »

rr808 wrote: post #23

How many package managers can one language have? Its a simple language but setting it up is just incredibly bad. Maybe this is the one or should I wait for the next?

imo all I usually need is pip-tools and venv, but uv kind of bundles the two together in a very natural way (and is very fast)

Re: Uv: Running a script with dependencies

#39

Post by alkh »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #21
alkh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, but the main question is how come the behaviour is still the same whether you pass the flag or not? I would get it if it just failed without "-S" but it works as intended. I am wondering if this is cause I might not be using the GNU version of env, so this is less relevant? Edit: looks to be the version thing indeed, this doesn't work for someone on Ubuntu

At some point coreutils added -S in order to support the behavior of BSD and MacOS. I would guess that whatever implementation you're using then added -S as a noop in order to (at long last) permit the portable usage of multi-argument shebang lines. Until both of those things happened there was no portable way to pass multiple arguments in a shebang. You used to have to do really stupid things (ex https://unix.stacke…

Actually, you might be onto something! If I test with explicit quoting in terminal, BSD and GNU produce the same behavior:(`env 'bash -c "echo hello"'` fails while `env -S 'bash -c "echo hello"'`) works. I wasn't aware of this:

"To test env -S on the command line, use single quotes for the -S string to emulate a single parameter. Single quotes are not needed when using env -S in a shebang line on the first line of a script (the operating system already treats it as one argument)"(from your second link).

This is different for shebang on Mac though:

GNU env works with or without '-S':

#!/opt/homebrew/bin/genv -S bash -v

echo "hello world!"

BSD env works with or without '-S' too:

#!/usr/bin/env -S bash -v

echo "hello world!"

To conclude, looks like adding `-S` is the safest option for comparability sake :).

Re: Uv: Running a script with dependencies

#40

Post by abdusco »

dwood_dev wrote: post #6
gopalv wrote: post #2

This is my absolute favourite uv features and the reason I switched to uv. I have a bunch of scripts in my git-hooks which have dependencies which I don't want in my main venv. #!/usr/bin/env -S uv run --script --python 3.13 This single feature meant that I could use the dependencies without making its own venv, but just include "brew install uv" as instructions to the devs.

Completely agree. UV for stalled what was going to be a major project to move lots of python to golang. There will still be a lot migrated, but smaller script like things are no longer in scope.

I still write small some scripts in golang when the bootup time is important. Python still takes its time to boot up, and it's not the best tool for the job if it's gonna be called like a shell utility for thousands of files, for example.
Post reply on HN