In a requirements-*.in file, at the top of the file, are lines with -c and -r flags followed by a requirements-*.in file. Uses relative paths (ignoring URLs).

Say have docs/requirements-pip-tools.in

-r ../requirements/requirements-prod.in
-c ../requirements/requirements-pins-base.in
-c ../requirements/requirements-pins-cffi.in

...

The intent is compiling this would produce docs/requirements-pip-tool.txt

But there is confusion as to which flag to use. It’s non-obvious.

constraint

Subset of requirements features. Intended to restrict package versions. Does not necessarily (might not) install the package!

Does not support:

  • editable mode (-e)

  • extras (e.g. coverage[toml])

Personal preference

  • always organize requirements files in folder(s)

  • don’t prefix requirements files with requirements-, just doing it here

  • DRY principle applies; split out constraints which are shared.

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 days ago

    are you really asking why use 1 tool instead of 5?

    venvs and dependency management are such interconnected concepts, I don’t even know how you could sustainably handle them separately.

    • logging_strict@programming.devOP
      1·
      2 days ago

      UNIX philosophy. One tool that does one thing well

      Best to have a damn good reason when breaking this principle (e.g. vendoring) or be funded by Money McBags

      requirements files are requirements files, not venvs. They may install into venv, but they are not venvs themselves. The only thing a venv provides that is of interest to ur requirements files are: the relative folder path (e.g. ‘.venv’) and python interpreter path. Nothing more. When using tox, the py version is hardcoded, so only need to provide the relative folder path.

      The venv management tools we have are sufficient. the problem is not the venv, it’s managing the requirements files.

      Your 1 tool suacks just as much as my 5 tools when it comes to managing requirement files. None of them do the job.

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        The Python env has been trying this multiple tools approach for decades and consistently delivering a worse experience than languages that pack most things in one tool.

        Rust is a bliss to use, largely thanks to cargo that takes care of build, dependencies, locking, tests, publishing etc. You say do one thing and do it well. In my experience they often do one thing in a mediocre way, while forcing users to understand which and how to combine dozens of possible tools in a development environment that keeps changing. It’s messy, slow, error prone, and requires constant developer attention.

        • logging_strict@programming.devOP
          1·
          12 hours ago

          Most languages don’t support packages containing multiple languages (C/C++, Cython, and Python). So Python situation is much more complex.

          distutils

          setuptools is complex

          pip is complex

          requirements files are complex

          space aliens wrote pytest (and pluggy)

          publishing and dependencies are super centralized, depending on pypi.org way too much.

          Comparing Rust vs Python is nonsense. Rust is a stricter compiler on top of C. It has to deal with legacy C libraries. It has it very very easy.