-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
Add uv-build to table #1880
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Add uv-build to table #1880
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9a6a435
Add uv-build to table
cbrnr bfd629b
Add uv in other places
cbrnr 4bd6330
[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks
pre-commit-ci[bot] f57c5bf
Use first version that supported PEP 639
cbrnr 2f4a15a
Merge branch 'main' into patch-2
ncoghlan File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Upper limits are normally discouraged. What's the justification here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See the note in their official docs: https://docs.astral.sh/uv/concepts/build-backend/#using-the-uv-build-backend
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We make (careful) breaking changes in the configuration format in 0.x releases, i.e. the configuration is only stable between >=0.x and <0.(x+1). Being a build backend, the usual concerns about upper bounds don't apply: The uv build backend is a binary with only a minimal Python shim, so older versions of the build backend will still work with newer Python versions. It has zero dependencies and is the only package in the build venv, so the aren't any conflicts the upper bound could cause.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That may be true upstream, but may present a challenge for the downstream maintainers as they often have a single version of a thing across their entire repositories (per distro release).
cc @befeleme @hroncok @mgorny any downstream insights on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please don't encourage upper bounds here. If you do, we'll and up in a position where we cannot update uv-build until we lift them. We won't be even able to test the packages with the new uv-build version in Fedora because of the pin.
Thanks @webknjaz for the mention.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Getting back to the specific question of this PR review (rather than the more general ones of showing exact version numbers and upper bounds in build dependencies):
uv-buildis a reasonable change to makeflit), not new in this PRThat says to me that we should define a new PyPUG issue regarding the maintainability of those config snippets, and avoid having that concern block this PR.
I've created that issue here: #1886
@webknjaz Given the creation of the dedicated issue, are you happy to consider the question resolved for the purpose of adding
uv-buildto the example backends?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ncoghlan I'm worried that accepting this as is would make the existing problem worse. And doing so is too impactful to just disregard it. The downstreams have expressed legitimate concern. Perhaps, we should address that issue you filed first so this PR wouldn't be as harmful?
@notatallshaw
This is different because the example with setuptools is adding new features and when documenting them, the bound has to be updated for things to work. Inevitably.
But the same isn't happening when things break. Nobody comes in to update the guide documenting breakages and adjusting related bounds. And so there's no process for when this would be happening.
Lower bounds are fine. Flit was mostly missed. It should also have an admonition explaining that upper bounds should be updated often. Maybe this admonition makes sense to have below all the examples, not selectively.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess my view is that the PR itself isn't really making things worse, it's instead making this existing problem with the status quo more obvious.
Omitting the upper bounds creates an "old project releases may not build" scenario that affects potentially everyone, whereas including them has a more limited impact specifically on "unified build environment" scenarios (which could potentially be mitigated by build tooling changes, such as an option to ignore upper bounds in build dependency declarations and see if anything actually breaks with the newer build tool versions).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mgorny @hroncok while merging this didn't exactly cater to your needs, I'd like to suggest discussing a systemic change to adding mentions of what's important for downstreams throughout PyPUG, if you're interested. Maybe, some admonitions linking to #1791 where relevant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've filed a PR to automatically update the
uv_buildversion range, to address the concern that the bounds would go stale: #1899