What's the rationale for that? My expectation is that few projects would need it.
zanie 6 minutes ago [-]
It makes `uv run <project-name>` work by default, I expect most projects to need an entry point.
_diyar 32 minutes ago [-]
Maybe a naive question, but any goal / progress towards an ”it just works” cuda installation? Currently, the only times i feel like i‘m stumbling over an install with uv is when pytorch / cuda is involved.
zanie 26 minutes ago [-]
Yes! We've been working on this for quite some time as it's one of the worst experiences in Python packaging today.
There are two PEPs that we're involved with that will provide the components for the ecosystem to properly declare metadata in this domain [1] [2].
We're also working on some features in uv, such as the torch backend option [3], to improve the situation in the interim.
We'll be announcing more in this area in the near future!
Follow up: has anyone suggested the projects collaborate or eventually converge?
zanie 21 minutes ago [-]
Pixi is very focused on the Conda ecosystem and implements a sort of bridge across the Conda and PyPI ecosystems. I am very interested in solving the problems that motivated creation of the Conda ecosystem, but I want to do so by driving forward the PyPI ecosystem so those use-cases can be addressed in _many_ tools instead of just one. This is the main reason you don't see us pursuing Conda package support in uv directly (in the style of Pixi).
There have been several threads about us collaborating or converging, but there are no concrete plans to do so at this time. We share some Rust crates, e.g., Pixi uses our internals to solve the PyPI-side of their dependencies, and we occasionally fix or change things for each other.
fishgoesblub 23 minutes ago [-]
Bit surprised, and disappointed to not see dynamic field support for the uv build backend in this update. Need it for dynamically getting the version from Git. Is there anything blocking it, or is it just not important enough?
zanie 19 minutes ago [-]
Unfortunately dynamic metadata is not efficient for package resolution, so we don't want to encourage it. Instead, we want to design a better workflow for using source control for versioning, but haven't had the time to do so.
fishgoesblub 16 minutes ago [-]
Interesting, a better way of doing versioning would be nice. The tool I use requires a git repo setup with at least 1 commit, annoying for brand new projects. I'll be eagerly waiting to see it eventually.
Lucasoato 42 minutes ago [-]
Has anything changed in your day by day work since OpenAI acquisition?
woodruffw 35 minutes ago [-]
For me, honestly not much.
hallvard 43 minutes ago [-]
Why (keep) the `uv pip` interface?
zanie 34 minutes ago [-]
We have the interface because we care a lot about meeting people where they are.
We keep the interface because we care a lot about long-term support and compatibility. I cannot imagine removing it.
We generally want to add features to the top-level interface such that people don't need or want to use the pip-interface because the top-level interface does everything you need, but better.
nvme0n1p1 20 minutes ago [-]
Laudable goals. Have you considered gating imperative commands behind a setting, maybe `tool.uv.pip.unreproducible = true` or somesuch? This would gently guide people towards better workflows, and also be a starting point for documenting the drawbacks of `uv pip` since it's a setting they'd be forced to add and presumably they'll read the docs for it first.
uv already does something similar with `tool.uv.pip.break-system-packages`.
notatallshaw 10 minutes ago [-]
FWIW, break-system-packages comes directly from pip's interface, it's not a novel addition from uv.
If Astral/OpenAI are willing to support uv pip in the long term, why do you think they should use a stick as well as a carrot to get people on uv's top level interface?
While uv's standard workflows probably works for 80+% of people, at least if they learn them, I certain do a lot of stuff with uv pip and pip that can't be replicated.
Also both uv pip and pip support installing from pylock.toml files, which are fully reproducible.
zanie 13 minutes ago [-]
I hadn't considered that, it's an interesting idea. We generally hold a very high bar for nagging users or gating behaviors. It's possible we'll reach a point someday where this is appropriate! I think you're right that we need to teach people better workflows, but that's happening organically as use of the tool grows and people's first exposure to a Python project is `uv init` and `uv add` rather than `pip`.
hallvard 29 minutes ago [-]
Fair points; the reason for asking is that it seems counterintuitive from the outside perspective for you to maintain/extend the pip interface as well?
And of course that some colleagues of mine insist on using `uv pip` for anything and everything, which feels wrong…
Granted it’s a great feature which made the transition to uv smooth in the first place.
zanie 11 minutes ago [-]
So far the maintenance burden has been quite bearable and extending pip provides us with an opportunity to explore and encourage improvements upstream which are still beneficial to a lot of people.
woodruffw 37 minutes ago [-]
It’s widely used, and there are still a lot of workflows that we hear about from users where they want/need to manually twiddle environments rather than having the “declarative” layer do it for them.
walthamstow 21 minutes ago [-]
uv pip is a brilliant adoption gateway, you get all of the speed gains for a 3 char change
simonw 19 minutes ago [-]
What's blocking a 1.0 release at this point?
brcmthrowaway 43 minutes ago [-]
Can you stop the --break-system-packages madness?
woodruffw 36 minutes ago [-]
WDYM by madness? I know what the flag is (and what it does), but people have strong opinions in opposite directions about what Python packaging should do around system environments.
zanie 32 minutes ago [-]
I think we're doing what we should making isolated environments easy to use. I don't think we should take options away from people that need them.
46 minutes ago [-]
uvvuajd 8 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
19 minutes ago [-]
drzhouq 22 minutes ago [-]
When can uv install gdal?
yablak 32 minutes ago [-]
thoughts on worm safety w.r.t. `exclude-newer`, and the right way to handle unpinned git repo deps?
analognoise 27 minutes ago [-]
uv fucks, especially with uv2nix.
Rendered at 20:44:15 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
There are two PEPs that we're involved with that will provide the components for the ecosystem to properly declare metadata in this domain [1] [2].
We're also working on some features in uv, such as the torch backend option [3], to improve the situation in the interim.
We'll be announcing more in this area in the near future!
[1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0817/ [2] https://peps.python.org/pep-0825/ [3] https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/integration/pytorch/#automa...
Follow up: has anyone suggested the projects collaborate or eventually converge?
There have been several threads about us collaborating or converging, but there are no concrete plans to do so at this time. We share some Rust crates, e.g., Pixi uses our internals to solve the PyPI-side of their dependencies, and we occasionally fix or change things for each other.
We keep the interface because we care a lot about long-term support and compatibility. I cannot imagine removing it.
We generally want to add features to the top-level interface such that people don't need or want to use the pip-interface because the top-level interface does everything you need, but better.
uv already does something similar with `tool.uv.pip.break-system-packages`.
If Astral/OpenAI are willing to support uv pip in the long term, why do you think they should use a stick as well as a carrot to get people on uv's top level interface?
While uv's standard workflows probably works for 80+% of people, at least if they learn them, I certain do a lot of stuff with uv pip and pip that can't be replicated.
Also both uv pip and pip support installing from pylock.toml files, which are fully reproducible.
And of course that some colleagues of mine insist on using `uv pip` for anything and everything, which feels wrong…
Granted it’s a great feature which made the transition to uv smooth in the first place.