Improve the surface of pixi integration#512
Conversation
packaging manifest
justb4
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Quite some changes, I am working on many of the same files to get Docker working, but not pushed yet. Have you tested your changes? I see some that may cause failures:
pyproject.toml: so folks can also usecondaetc for local/non-Docker install?tasks.py: thesetupfunction callsc.run('pip3 install -r requirements.txt')- not required anymore. Also callpythoni.s.o.python3.- at some point
invokemay be replaced bypixitasks IMHO .gitignore: exclude.pixidir- I am trying to have the Docker image run as user
ghci.s.o.root pixi.lockneeded?- was thinking of moving
install.shdirectly toDockerfilefor clarity. - my Docker image is still 1.3GB uncompressed, like to bring this down
- would like to investigate Multi-staged Docker build with pixi like in this article
We have quite some overlapping changes now, but I am glad things are moving in a modern direction! I'll give it some thinking what the best strategy is. If I merge your changes there will be quite some merge conflicts later with my local (non-pushed) version...
yes,
indeed task for installing requirements.txt is commented, I will remove. Call of python is already managed and wrapped by same
agree, see above
it is recommended to ignore
the lock file is the source of truth for pixi reproducibility
feel free
ok
+1 it was intentionally missed in this PR
np, my intention was to push the usage of pixi with some useful patterns |
|
I have pushed new changes to https://github.com/geopython/GeoHealthCheck/tree/510-pixi-deploy , taking some of @francbartoli conventions:
Main focus was:
The Docker Image is now 772MB uncompressed, works with Compose and executing tests. Only error is when calling DB Upgrade, e.g. |
|
Ok, the |
Complete the migration to pixi for packages management, see #510