Uv 0.12.0(github.com)
78 pointsby hallvard2 hours ago6 comments
  • woodruffw2 hours ago
    This is our first breaking release since March. We’re happy to answer any questions folks have about it.
    • simonwan hour ago
      The thing where "uv init" now adds this to pyproject.toml is a bit surprising:

        [project.scripts]
  demo-latest = "demo_latest:main"
      What's the rationale for that? My expectation is that few projects would need it.
      • zaniean hour ago
        It makes `uv run <project-name>` work by default, I expect most projects to need an entry point.
    • _diyaran hour 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.
    • helltonean hour ago
      How do you think of uv vs pixi?

      Follow up: has anyone suggested the projects collaborate or eventually converge?

      • zaniean hour 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.

    • hallvardan hour ago
      Why (keep) the `uv pip` interface?
      • zaniean hour 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.

        • nvme0n1p1an hour 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`.

          • notatallshawan hour 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.

          • zaniean hour 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`.
            • EuanReid5 minutes ago
              Perhaps something requiring opt-in sooner, so project maintainers can - through config - say "we don't use the pip interface on this project"?
        • hallvardan hour 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.

          • zaniean hour 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.
      • ghshephard4 minutes ago
        I'll confess to using `uv` almost every day for the last year+ - and I've never used anything other than `uv pip install` for package management.

        Is there any compelling reason not to?

      • woodruffwan hour 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.
      • walthamstowan hour ago
        uv pip is a brilliant adoption gateway, you get all of the speed gains for a 3 char change
        • gkhartman12 minutes ago
          Yeah, I don't think I'd have made the jump otherwise, since convincing others on the team would have been much harder.
    • Lucasoatoan hour ago
      Has anything changed in your day by day work since OpenAI acquisition?
      • woodruffwan hour ago
        For me, honestly not much.
    • fishgoesbluban hour 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?
      • zaniean hour 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.
        • fishgoesbluban hour 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.
    • simonwan hour ago
      What's blocking a 1.0 release at this point?
      • notatallshaw21 minutes ago
        Or an obscure CalVer that no one realizes - /pip-maintainer
    • brcmthrowawayan hour ago
      Can you stop the --break-system-packages madness?
      • woodruffwan hour 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.
      • zaniean hour 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.
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • uvvuajdan hour ago
      [flagged]
    • pytorch_app4an hour ago
      [flagged]
  • drzhouqan hour ago
    When can uv install gdal?
  • an hour ago
    undefined
  • XorNot7 minutes ago
    Are we likely to get an "uv upgrade" command that makes sense sometime?

    It's still very obtuse how to get uv to just try and make all my dependencies the highest version possible.

  • yablakan hour ago
    thoughts on worm safety w.r.t. `exclude-newer`, and the right way to handle unpinned git repo deps?
  • analognoisean hour ago
    uv fucks, especially with uv2nix.