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

uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

wagtail.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 206 posts

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#71

Post by wfme »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #66
Etheryte wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an issue with the packages themselves though, not with package management as a whole. You and the comment above you are talking about different things. While there's plenty of pain to be had with npm, if you have a project that used to work years ago, you can generally just clone, install and be done, even if on older versions. On Python this used to mean a lot of hurt, often even if it was a fresh project tha…

For value of "years" greater than 1? Node/NPM was a poster child of an ecosystem where projects break three times a week, due to having too many transitive dependencies that are being updated too often.

Projects breaking so frequently on npm and node is simply not the case unless you are trying upgrade an old project, one dependency per day…

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#72

Post by amelius »

matrss wrote: post #63
amelius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how does it work with components that require libraries written in C? And what if there are no binaries yet for my architecture, will it compile them, including all the dependencies written in C?

IMO if you require libraries in other languages then a pure python package manager like uv, pip, poetry, whatever, is simply the wrong tool for the job. There is _some_ support for this through wheels, and I'd expect uv to support them just as much as pip does, but they feel like a hack to me. Instead there is pixi, which is similar in concept to uv but for the conda-forge packaging ecosystem. Nix and guix are also l…

But for example, if I install the Python package "shapely", it will need a C package named GEOS as a shared library. How do I ensure that the version of GEOS on my system is the one shapely wants? By trial and error? And how does that work with environments, where I have different versions of packages in different places? It sounds a bit messy to me, compared to a solution where everything is managed by a single package manager.

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#73

Post by ThibWeb »

ZuLuuuuuu wrote: post #56

PyCharm also added uv support in their latest versions. We recently switched to PDM in our company because it worked very well in our tests with different package/dependency managers. Now I am rethinking if we should switch to uv while PDM usage is still not very wide-spread in our company. But PDM works very well, so I am not sure whether to keep using it.

With the caveat I only have the package installers usage data for Wagtail downloads – pdm usage has fallen off a cliff, from 0.2% of downloads in January 2024, to 0.01% in January 2025. Roughly matches the uptake of uv.

Doesn’t make pdm bad in itself but that means there’ll be fewer pdm users around to report bugs, potentially fewer contributors to it too, fewer resources, etc.

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#74

Post by mvATM99 »

emblaegh wrote: post #13

Man, I’m so jealous of insane praise that uv (and most other astral tools) gets. I don’t think ever seen anything so unanimously lauded around here.

With good reason honestly. They take all the best practices from existing tooling we had, discard the bad, and make it run blazingly fast.

Ruff for me meant i could turn 4 pre-commit hooks (which you have to configure to be compatible with each other too) into just 1, and i no longer dread the "run Pylint and take a coffee break" moment.

I jumped ship to UV recently. Though i was skeptical at first i don't regret it. It makes dependency management less of a chore, and just something i can quickly do now. Switching from Poetry was easy for me too, only package i had issues with was pytorch, but that just required some different toml syntax.

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#75

Post by qwertox »

I've read so much positive feedback about uv, that I'd really like to use it, but I'm unsure if it fits my needs.

I was heavily invested into virtualenv until I had to upgrade OS versions, which upgraded the Python versions and therefore broke the venvs.

I tried to solve this by using pyenv, but the need of recompiling Python on every patch wasn't something which I would accept, specially in regards to boards like Raspberry Pis.

Then I tried miniconda which I initially only liked because of the precompiled Python binaries, and ultimately ended up using pyenv-managed miniforge so that I could run multiple "instances" of miniforge and therefore upgrade miniforge gradually.

Pyenv also has a plugin which allows to set suffixes to environments, which allows me to have multiple miniforges of the same version in different locations, like miniforge-home and miniforge-media, where -home has all files in the home dir and -media has all files on a mounted nvme, which then is where I put projects with huge dependencies like CUDA inside, not cluttering home, which is contained in a VM image.

It works really great, Jupyter and vscode can use them as kernels/interpreters, and it is fully independent of the OS's Python, so that OS upgrades (22.04 -> 24.04) are no longer an issue.

But I'm reading about all these benefits of uv and wish I could use it, but somehow my setup seems to have tied my hands. I think I can't use uv in my projects.

Any recommendations?

Edit: Many of my projects share the same environment, this is absolutely normal for me. I only create a new environment if I know that it will be so complex that it might break things in existing environments.

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#76

Post by ZuLuuuuuu »

ThibWeb wrote: post #73
ZuLuuuuuu wrote: post #56

PyCharm also added uv support in their latest versions. We recently switched to PDM in our company because it worked very well in our tests with different package/dependency managers. Now I am rethinking if we should switch to uv while PDM usage is still not very wide-spread in our company. But PDM works very well, so I am not sure whether to keep using it.

With the caveat I only have the package installers usage data for Wagtail downloads – pdm usage has fallen off a cliff, from 0.2% of downloads in January 2024, to 0.01% in January 2025. Roughly matches the uptake of uv. Doesn’t make pdm bad in itself but that means there’ll be fewer pdm users around to report bugs, potentially fewer contributors to it too, fewer resources, etc.

Indeed, on one hand PDM works great, but on the other hand we wouldn't want to choose a package manager which might not be maintained anymore after a few years because there are just not many users of it.

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#77

Post by bsdz »

I feel for me, at least one nice thing about poetry over uv is, that if I have an issue or feature extension, I can just write my own plugin in pure Python. With uv, I'd need to learn Rust in addition to python/c/c++/etc.

I wonder what it would take to get poetry on par with uv for those who are already switching to it? Poetry is definitely very slow downloading multiple versions of packages to determine dependencies (not sure how uv works around this?). Does uv have a better dependency checker algorithm?

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#78

Post by Etheryte »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #66
Etheryte wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an issue with the packages themselves though, not with package management as a whole. You and the comment above you are talking about different things. While there's plenty of pain to be had with npm, if you have a project that used to work years ago, you can generally just clone, install and be done, even if on older versions. On Python this used to mean a lot of hurt, often even if it was a fresh project tha…

For value of "years" greater than 1? Node/NPM was a poster child of an ecosystem where projects break three times a week, due to having too many transitive dependencies that are being updated too often.

This argument makes no sense. Your dependencies don't change unless you change them, npm doesn't magically update things underneath you. Things can break when you try to update one thing or another, yes, but if you just take an old project and try and run it, it will work.

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#79

Post by stabbles »

amelius wrote: post #72
matrss wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO if you require libraries in other languages then a pure python package manager like uv, pip, poetry, whatever, is simply the wrong tool for the job. There is _some_ support for this through wheels, and I'd expect uv to support them just as much as pip does, but they feel like a hack to me. Instead there is pixi, which is similar in concept to uv but for the conda-forge packaging ecosystem. Nix and guix are also l…

But for example, if I install the Python package "shapely", it will need a C package named GEOS as a shared library. How do I ensure that the version of GEOS on my system is the one shapely wants? By trial and error? And how does that work with environments, where I have different versions of packages in different places? It sounds a bit messy to me, compared to a solution where everything is managed by a single pack…

You could use a package manager that packages C, C++, Fortran and Python packages, such as Spack: here's the py-shapely recipe [1] and here is geos [2]. Probably nix does similar.

[1]: https://github.com/spack/spack/blob/develop/var/spack/repos/... [2]: https://github.com/spack/spack/blob/develop/var/spack/repos/...

Re: uv downloads overtake Poetry for Wagtail users

#80

Post by adrian17 »

NeutralForest wrote: post #46
TOMDM wrote: post #18

For the uninitiated what is the benefit of UV over pip? I've been working with pip for so long now that I barely notice it unless something goes very wrong.

- uv is aware of your dependencies, you can add/remove development dependencies, create group of development dependencies (test, lint, dev, etc) and add or remove those and only those at will. You can add dependencies and optional dependencies for a project as well, think my_app[cli,standard]. You don't need to have different requirements.txt for each case nor do you need to remove things by hand as you'd do in pip,…

Does this also replace, or work well with tox? We currently use it to run basic CI/local workflows (`tox -e lint` for all linters, `tox -e py310`, `tox -e py312` to run tests suites on chosen interpreters' environments), and to set up a local environment with package installed in-place (so that we can run `myprogram -arg1 -arg2` as if it was installed via `pip`, but still have it be editable by directly editing the repo).

With how much the ecosystem is moving, I don't know whether the way we're doing it is unusual (Django and some other big projects still have a tox.ini), obsolete (I can't find how ux obsoletes this), or perfectly fine and I just can't find how to replace pip with ux for this use case.

Post reply on HN