Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by bastawhiz on Wednesday August 13, 2025 @09:30PM
(#44895831)
I'd otherwise agree but this problem seems unique to Python. I don't have problems like this with npm or composer or rubygems. Or at least very infrequently. It's almost every time I need to update dependencies or install on a new machine that the Python ecosystem decides I'm not worthy.
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by rs186 on Wednesday August 13, 2025 @11:47PM
(#44896551)
I think pip made some poor design choices very early, but pip stuck around for a long time and people kept using it. Of course things got out of control, then people kept inventing new package management until uv comes along. I don't know enough about Python to understand how people could live with that for so long.
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by frollogaston on Thursday August 14, 2025 @12:59AM
(#44896876)
Every big Python repo has a Dockerfile, which is much less common in JS.
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by rcleveng on Thursday August 14, 2025 @02:06AM
(#44897216)
honestly until UV I thought this was the only sane way to package a python app, now it's still the only sane way and I'll use uv in the dockerfile which is honestly more complicated than their docs or reason would expect.
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by rcleveng on Thursday August 14, 2025 @01:49AM
(#44897129)
like what?
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by fragmede on Wednesday August 13, 2025 @11:48PM
(#44896555)
> pip started to warn me that I couldn't globally install packages anymore
Yeah I had that on my work computer. I just created a venv and source that in my .bashrc.
Hahaha that is an awesome middle finger to pip :-)
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by codethief on Thursday August 14, 2025 @06:25AM
(#44898788)
Is it? I would have thought this is still in line with their goals. Your individual projects' venvs will still be fully separate.
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by cyphar on Thursday August 14, 2025 @08:04AM
(#44899419)
No, they're saying that they have one venv they use for everything (i.e., it's basically a working "pip install --user").
I think it's a good thing that pip finally decided to refuse overwriting distro package paths (the alternative is far worse) but making "pip install --user" not work as well doesn't make sense.
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by tayo42 on Wednesday August 13, 2025 @09:17PM
(#44895759)
You can turn that off and allow global packages again if you want.
Or install it with the os package manager or something simmilar
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by x3n0ph3n3 on Wednesday August 13, 2025 @10:51PM
(#44896283)
You assume the OS package manager I happen to be using even has packages for some of the libraries I want to use.
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by 0x6c6f6c on Wednesday August 13, 2025 @11:33PM
(#44896481)
Nothing about their post indicated they assumed that.
They offered two options, so you can go do the other one if it doesn't work for you.
Re:PYX: The next step in Python packaging
by yxhuvud on Thursday August 14, 2025 @02:07AM
(#44897219)
Or for that matter, that the ones they do have are compatible with packages that comes from other places. I've seen language libraries be restructured when OS packagers got hold of them. That wasn't pretty.
I just want packaging to fuck off and leave me alone. Changes here are always bad, because they're changes.