"pip freeze" generates a versioned list of packages to install in the same format as requirements.txt -- in this example below i've called it versions.txt. I have a bash wrapper "bin/venv-create" which essentially does this

    python3 -m venv .venv/
    if [[ -f versions.txt ]] && [[ versions.txt -nt requirements.txt ]]; then
        pip install --requirement versions.txt
    else
        pip install --requirement requirements.txt
        pip freeze > versions.txt
    fi

(I place the files in etc/pip/ in my projects (and check them into git), but I've omitted the paths for clarity. One could embellish this by including python version number in the filename, as package requirements can change between python versions.)

I also have a bin/venv-python wrapper which sets PYTHONPATH, PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTCODE before chain calling .venv/bin/python3 with the arguments, and this is how pip above is called. (again, omitted above for clarity.)

This won't cover everyone's usage scenario, but it works for me. YMMV.

https://iam.georgecox.com/2021/09/25/python-3-venv/ explains the details.

`pip freeze` doesn't generate hashes, so you can't be sure that the package contents haven't actually changed but maintained the same version string.

Also, `pip freeze` doesn't include platform-specific dependencies for other platforms. So if you run the following on linux and again on macos, you'll get different results because `ipython` depends on `appnope` only when running on macos.

  python -m venv env && env/bin/pip install ipython==8.4.0 --quiet && env/bin/pip freeze

these are legitimate weaknesses -- thank you for highlighting them. On the other hand, if one can accept these weaknesses, keeping separate the root requirements file and the versions file goes a long way to making the process manageable, and not as chaotic as some might have you believe.

The beef I have with so many explanations of pip is that they tell you to source ".venv/bin/activate" and then "just run pip install whatever" without a) separating the root requirements from the effective/complete requirements, and b) they don't suggest using a wrapper for the ".venv/bin/python3" binary so that execution is the same in all environments.

Thanks, I appreciate this.

I don't think this practice is widespread, which is exactly why I made a point about human engineering in my original post. But I do appreciate that solutions like this exist, and I should look into driving more of this sort of thing in my projects.

the blog post is missing a link to the template github repo; i'll fix that

> A classic example is version pinning. Rust has Cargo.lock, Ruby has Gemfile.lock. Python?

Does it matter? I get a different way to define dependencies. But the lock file itself is an implementation detail. You use the package manager the project uses and the lock file can be opaque. It's the same for package-lock.json / yarn.lock in js land.

The rest of the sentences in that paragraph present an argument for why it might matter.

python's poetry has poetry.lock I think it's slowly becoming semi-standard. But still slowly and still not fully ready(bugs). Also its odd that pyproject.toml (not poetry.toml which is the poetry settings for repo) is the dependency definition file and poetry.lock is the lock file

for pip file I usually make a requirements-to-freeze.txt, make a fresh virtualenv, install requirements-to-freeze.txt and then pip freeze > requirements.txt poetry does this automatically

> But still slowly and still not fully ready(bugs).

I use poetry every day and so far it's been pretty great. The main complications I have had are with accessing private pypi repos in Azure DevOps pipelines which use short lived tokens but it just looks a little clunky, still works.

> Also its odd that pyproject.toml (not poetry.toml which is the poetry settings for repo) is the dependency definition file and poetry.lock is the lock file

This is because poetry is using Python's PEP 518[1] specification rather than define their own build requirements format. It also isn't limited to just building, you can also include the configuration for other python tools like `pytest`[2].

[1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0518/

[2] https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/reference/customize.html#p...

> This is because poetry is using Python's PEP 518[1] specification rather than define their own build requirements format. It also isn't limited to just building, you can also include the configuration for other python tools like `pytest`[2].

I sort of get this but its still a bit odd. especially since I have a small poetry.toml as well.

> I use poetry every day and so far it's been pretty great.

I like poetry, it works a lot better for me then pipenv did(to be fair that was a few years ago). But I do seem to have to delete lock file to update it and sometimes poetry add/install breaks oddly(or at least with awkward error messages). Also sometimes it interacts with venvs in odd ways. python really needs to ship with it

The pyproject.toml is telling you what should work in terms of a range of package versions and the poetry.lock is telling you what my environment is in terms of exactly what is installed. You don't need the lock file, but without it there is no guarantee of what it will install so it may not be completely compatible.

I must live a sheltered life. Everything I've run into so far uses requirements.txt to pin dependencies. Well supported and easy is probably why.

Yes, exactly. And how many of these projects go to any effort to pin their transitive dependencies?

In my experience, this is basically no one; in fact I've seen many (most?) projects not even pin the versions on their top-level dependencies. (Ask yourself how many times you've seen just "numpy" as a dependency without any version bound. Far too often in my experience.)

And this is exactly why stuff breaks: even when the root dependencies are pinned (and are they?), a transitive dependency could get upgraded and break something (or fail to build entirely).