Uv 0.12.0

127

hhallvard about 16 hours ago 42 commentsRead Article on github.com

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

76% Positive

Analyzed from 890 words in the discussion.

Discussion (42 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

woodruffw•about 16 hours ago

This is our first breaking release since March. We’re happy to answer any questions folks have about it.

simonw•about 15 hours 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.

(I have a GitHub repo that captures differences between uv versions, here's today's upgrade: https://github.com/simonw/uv-init-demos/commit/9111a2bb85741...)

zanie•about 15 hours ago

It makes `uv run <project-name>` work by default, I expect most projects to need an entry point.

codethief•about 11 hours ago

Nah. I just put a regular `main.py` with some

  if __name__ == "__main__":
      ...

in my src/ folder. Done.

_diyar•about 16 hours 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•about 16 hours 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!

[1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0817/ [2] https://peps.python.org/pep-0825/ [3] https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/integration/pytorch/#automa...

helltone•about 16 hours ago

How do you think of uv vs pixi?

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

zanie•about 16 hours 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.

Lucasoato•about 16 hours ago

Has anything changed in your day by day work since OpenAI acquisition?

woodruffw•about 16 hours ago

For me, honestly not much.

hallvard•about 16 hours ago

Why (keep) the `uv pip` interface?

zanie•about 16 hours 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•about 16 hours 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`.

hallvard•about 16 hours 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.

woodruffw•about 16 hours 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.

ghshephard•about 15 hours 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?

walthamstow•about 16 hours ago

uv pip is a brilliant adoption gateway, you get all of the speed gains for a 3 char change

ethin•about 14 hours ago

Agreed, I'd prefer it stick around for the long-term because I use it when creating temporary venvs to screw around with things that I'm not certain about committing to in my actual projects for example. I guess I could do that with scripts but it's nicer/easier to use uv pip

gkhartman•about 15 hours ago

Yeah, I don't think I'd have made the jump otherwise, since convincing others on the team would have been much harder.

fishgoesblub•about 16 hours 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•about 16 hours 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•about 16 hours 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.

Induane•about 13 hours ago

At what point is that the case? When a package is built, it's version is determined at that moment from whatever dynamic source, and is then written into the metadata in a static way (or surely could be if for some weird reason it isn't).

simonw•about 16 hours ago

What's blocking a 1.0 release at this point?

notatallshaw•about 15 hours ago

Or an obscure CalVer that no one realizes - /pip-maintainer

brcmthrowaway•about 16 hours ago

Can you stop the --break-system-packages madness?

woodruffw•about 16 hours 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•about 16 hours 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.

carsmain•about 14 hours ago

Do you have any plans to support pip download?

nomel•about 12 hours ago

Related, offline/air-gapped support, which is what prevents me from using it.

drzhouq•about 16 hours ago

When can uv install gdal?

yablak•about 16 hours ago

thoughts on worm safety w.r.t. `exclude-newer`, and the right way to handle unpinned git repo deps?

drcongo•about 2 hours ago

Still no `uv show` and still no homepage link in `uv pip show`. I love uv, but man the ux needs some work.

XorNot•about 15 hours 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.

zanie•about 14 hours ago

Yes! It's in progress — it's already there, just hidden as we iterate on it.

(but as a note, the initial `uv lock` will already attempt to choose the highest possible versions and `uv lock --upgrade` will do so again, requests for `uv upgrade` are generally centered around changing the constraints in the `pyproject.toml`)

XorNot•about 11 hours ago

Yeah the constraints in pyproject is exactly the issue I'm thinking of.

peterdsharpe•about 15 hours ago

`uv sync --upgrade`? It's in the docs