Does it do away with setuptools? After my experience interacting with the maintainers, now refer to that package as, The Deep State
The Deep State only supports loading dependencies from pypi.org
Which has many advantages right up until it doesn’t.
This new standard contains dependency host url. Hope there is a package other than setuptools that supports it.
When bring it up, and prove it, the responses alternate between playing dumb and gaslighting. The truth is The Deep State are gate keepers. And they are in the way.
Training wheels off mode please! So there is support for requirements files that contain on which server dependencies are hosted with more than one choice. Would like the option to host packages locally or remotely using pypiserver or equivalent.
On the positive side, setuptool maintainers did not suggest voodoo dolls, try to wait out the planetary alignment, better economic conditions, or peace on Earth.
That’s how the conversation comes off to my eyes. But form your own opinion. Especially enjoyable for folks who also enjoyed the TV series, The Office.
What are the alternatives to being stonewalled by setuptools?
Disclosure: Wrote requirements rendering package, wreck. I have my own voodoo dolls and plenty of pins
AFAIK setuptools and hatch are for building. Publishing is a different process. You can try uv for publishing, but idk if it supports publishing to alternatives to PyPI.
Viva la package dependencies!
Does it do away with setuptools? After my experience interacting with the maintainers, now refer to that package as, The Deep State
The Deep State only supports loading dependencies from pypi.org Which has many advantages right up until it doesn’t.
This new standard contains dependency host url. Hope there is a package other than setuptools that supports it.
When bring it up, and prove it, the responses alternate between playing dumb and gaslighting. The truth is The Deep State are gate keepers. And they are in the way.
Training wheels off mode please! So there is support for requirements files that contain on which server dependencies are hosted with more than one choice. Would like the option to host packages locally or remotely using pypiserver or equivalent.
On the positive side, setuptool maintainers did not suggest voodoo dolls, try to wait out the planetary alignment, better economic conditions, or peace on Earth.
That’s how the conversation comes off to my eyes. But form your own opinion. Especially enjoyable for folks who also enjoyed the TV series, The Office.
What are the alternatives to being stonewalled by setuptools?
Disclosure: Wrote requirements rendering package, wreck. I have my own voodoo dolls and plenty of pins
I really don’t understand what you are complaining about. There has been a “training wheels off I want to do things manually” option for ages.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16584552/how-to-state-in-requirements-txt-a-direct-github-source
git sources are not allowed by pypi.org
pypi.org cartel does not like competition; github repos are no exception.
Try to publish packages with git sourced packages and find out the hard way or save time and take my word for it.
-- author of wreckPoetry or UV
Still haven’t tried the latter but heard good things
Have you tried hatch?
I don’t know why people are still bothering with setuptools for new projects.
From the hatch docs, not seeing where it discusses publishing to alternative package warehouses.
AFAIK setuptools and hatch are for building. Publishing is a different process. You can try
uvfor publishing, but idk if it supports publishing to alternatives to PyPI.setuptools is for enforcing a cartel, naively can simplify that to
for building.I hope uv completely replaces setuptools and build. Then the maintainers can move on to another racket.