Uv 0.12.0
67 points - today at 7:41 PM
Sourcewoodruffw
today at 7:56 PM
This is our first breaking release since March. We’re happy to answer any questions folks have about it.
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.
It makes `uv run <project-name>` work by default, I expect most projects to need an entry point.
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.
How do you think of uv vs pixi?
Follow up: has anyone suggested the projects collaborate or eventually converge?
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.
Why (keep) the `uv pip` interface?
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
today at 8:24 PM
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
today at 8:34 PM
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.
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`.
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.
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
today at 8:07 PM
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
today at 8:22 PM
uv pip is a brilliant adoption gateway, you get all of the speed gains for a 3 char change
Lucasoato
today at 8:02 PM
Has anything changed in your day by day work since OpenAI acquisition?
woodruffw
today at 8:08 PM
For me, honestly not much.
fishgoesblub
today at 8:21 PM
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?
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
today at 8:28 PM
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.
brcmthrowaway
today at 8:00 PM
Can you stop the --break-system-packages madness?
woodruffw
today at 8:08 PM
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.
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.
What's blocking a 1.0 release at this point?
pytorch_app4
today at 8:42 PM
[flagged]
thoughts on worm safety w.r.t. `exclude-newer`, and the right way to handle unpinned git repo deps?
When can uv install gdal?
analognoise
today at 8:16 PM
uv fucks, especially with uv2nix.