They kind of lost me at piping a script to sh. Is this the official way? Get your shit packaged into the popular distros. DevOps isn’t that hard.
Using the UV hashbang and a few doc strings for dependencies so you can run full on python scripts as executables is fucking crack.
I have an idea of what this might look like, but do you have any examples I can crib from?
This article looks like it explains the process:
https://mathspp.com/blog/til/standalone-executable-python-scripts-with-uv
Cool. But for God’s sake don’t run python code from the internet, that’s such a huge security risk,
Dont worry, I just vibe run it.
Thank you, this goes to the top of my reading pile for tomorrow! We’ve been doing a lot of uv conversions at work and I have a specific personal use for this as well
And it isn’t even written in Python!
That means it can’t be maintained by the community it’s serving. For those skilled in both Rust and Python can understand why it would appear as the best thing since sliced bread.
What about for those not skilled in Rust? Should we also learn 15 other coding languages while we are at it?
wreck is written in Python and manages dependencies. via hierarchy of requirements files, not TOML. It’s venv aware. For Python package authors.
spoiler alert: Python isn’t written in Python
spoiler alert: Python isn’t written in fortran, cobol, pascal, assembly, VBA, Java, javascript, or Rust (ignoring clunky pypy). uv is written in Rust.
spoiler alert: Don’t have to be a C coder to use Python
Literally it’s best feature, because then you can download a binary and guarantee that with that binary, you have a working python virtualenv on every platform UV supports.
This page said it’s written in Rust. Is this the same UV?
yes
Does it allow differentiating between dependencies and dev dependencies though? I couldn’t gather that from the article.
wreck can. It’s venv aware. Takes full advantage of hierarchical requirement files. Is intuitive. The learning curve is minimal. Written in Python.
[[tool.wreck.venvs]] venv_base_path = '.venv' reqs = [ 'requirements/pip', 'requirements/pip-tools', 'requirements/prod', 'requirements/dev', 'requirements/manage', 'requirements/kit', 'requirements/mypy', 'requirements/tox', ] [[tool.wreck.venvs]] venv_base_path = '.doc/.venv' reqs = [ 'docs/requirements', 'docs/pip-tools', ][tool.setuptools.dynamic] dependencies = { file = ['requirements/prod.unlock'] } optional-dependencies.pip = { file = ['requirements/pip.lock'] } optional-dependencies.pip_tools = { file = ['requirements/pip-tools.lock'] } optional-dependencies.dev = { file = ['requirements/dev.lock'] } optional-dependencies.manage = { file = ['requirements/manage.lock'] } optional-dependencies.docs = { file = ['docs/requirements.lock'] }reqs fix --venv-relpath='.venv'reqs fix --venv-relpath='.doc/.venv'From
*.inrequirements files would produce*.unlockand*.lockfiles for venv.venv. Package versions are sync’ed within all requirements files within that venv.it does, I use it every day
this is the standard https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/dependency-groups/
UV has a shitload of features. I’ve only ever really used it for making virtualemvs for easier cross platform compatibility, but even just for that, there’s tons of options related to which packages, from where, etc.
tl:dr probably, although differentiating between “deploy” and “dev” installs is the task of the package config which UV doesn’t (to my knowledge) replace in any way.
