installation of editable package don't work when adding python markers #3604
Assignees
Labels
compatibility
Compatibility with a specification or another tool
enhancement
New feature or improvement to existing functionality
Comments
|
I don't think pip respects these, as far as I can tell they're just ignored? For example, installing this file always installs the editable: |
|
I think you're right, the marker used will be the one define in the editable package if any |
|
I agree we should do something different here (bare minimum: a real error message), but undecided on what. I'm tempted to say we should actually just support them. See: pypa/pip#8581. |
charliermarsh
added
enhancement
|
I think my preference would be to actually support and respect these. Second choice would be to parse them properly, but ignore them and warn. |
|
Fixed in #3622. |
charliermarsh
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 16, 2024
## Summary If a user includes markers after an editable, we now ignore them (rather than including them in the parsed URL). This matches pip's behavior. In the future, we could further improve by respecting them, but that _would_ be a deviation from pip. For example, given: ``` -e ./scripts/packages/black_editable ; python_version >= "3.9" and python_ver ``` We now split at the first whitespace (just before the `;`), parse everything before, and throw out everything after. This logic also extends to extras. So given: ``` -e ./scripts/packages/black_editable[dev, colorama] ``` We'll now parse this as the URL `./scripts/packages/black_editable[dev,`, and throw out ` colorama]`. Instead, you need to do: ``` -e ./scripts/packages/black_editable[dev,colorama] ``` (I.e., remove the space.) This _also_ matches pip's behavior. I could "fix" this but I'm unsure if I should -- it means requirements files will be parseable by uv that won't work with pip. Open to input. My gut reaction is that we _should_ properly support `-e ./scripts/packages/black_editable[dev, colorama]` even if pip would reject it, but `requirements.txt` is implementation-defined so it'd be a "deviation". Closes #3604.
|
Out now in v0.1.45. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
UV details
version:
0.1.44command
uv pip sync requirements.txtWhat
uv currently not work while installing an editable package with python markers
How to reproduce
for the following requirements.txt
uv fails with the following error
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: