Skip to content

Conversation

@henryiii
Copy link
Contributor

Now supported in the latest uv release.

@henryiii henryiii force-pushed the henryiii/feat/uvandroid branch 3 times, most recently from a400b8e to 18c45a5 Compare September 11, 2025 05:07
@henryiii henryiii marked this pull request as ready for review September 11, 2025 22:11
@henryiii henryiii requested a review from mhsmith as a code owner September 11, 2025 22:11
@henryiii
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mhsmith, does this seem reasonable? I'll be in India for a week, so feel free to edit as needed.

@mhsmith
Copy link
Member

mhsmith commented Sep 17, 2025

Looks good so far. A few comments:

  • The docs say build[uv] will use uv "when making all build and test environments", but the current version of this PR still uses pip to install the test environment. This may be a problem if pip is not installed at all.

    To test this, the "frontend_good" test should probably be extended to include a test command.

  • The Android references in the build-frontend docs should be updated. Suggest the following:

    uv currently does not support Windows on ARM,
    musllinux on s390x, AndroidPyodide, or iOS. Legacy dependencies like
    setuptools on Python < 3.12 and pip are not installed if using uv.

    On Android and Pyodide, only "build" isthe "pip" frontend is not supported.

@henryiii henryiii force-pushed the henryiii/feat/uvandroid branch from 18c45a5 to 7b4079b Compare September 24, 2025 14:46
@henryiii
Copy link
Contributor Author

henryiii commented Sep 24, 2025

Looks like we need to translate pip's --platform into --python-platform on uv?

error: invalid value 'android_21_x86_64' for '--python-platform <PYTHON_PLATFORM>'
[possible values: windows, linux, macos, x86_64-pc-windows-msvc, aarch64-pc-windows-msvc, i686-pc-windows-msvc, x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, aarch64-apple-darwin, x86_64-apple-darwin, aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu, aarch64-unknown-linux-musl, x86_64-unknown-linux-musl, riscv64-unknown-linux, x86_64-manylinux2014, x86_64-manylinux_2_17, x86_64-manylinux_2_28, x86_64-manylinux_2_31, x86_64-manylinux_2_32, x86_64-manylinux_2_33, x86_64-manylinux_2_34, x86_64-manylinux_2_35, x86_64-manylinux_2_36, x86_64-manylinux_2_37, x86_64-manylinux_2_38, x86_64-manylinux_2_39, x86_64-manylinux_2_40, aarch64-manylinux2014, aarch64-manylinux_2_17, aarch64-manylinux_2_28, aarch64-manylinux_2_31, aarch64-manylinux_2_32, aarch64-manylinux_2_33, aarch64-manylinux_2_34, aarch64-manylinux_2_35, aarch64-manylinux_2_36, aarch64-manylinux_2_37, aarch64-manylinux_2_38, aarch64-manylinux_2_39, aarch64-manylinux_2_40, aarch64-linux-android, x86_64-linux-android, wasm32-pyodide2024, arm64-apple-ios, arm64-apple-ios-simulator, x86_64-apple-ios-simulator]

@henryiii henryiii force-pushed the henryiii/feat/uvandroid branch from ee40809 to a0350fa Compare October 8, 2025 18:16
@henryiii henryiii force-pushed the henryiii/feat/uvandroid branch from d1bc6a3 to 4cccafa Compare October 15, 2025 20:06
Copy link
Contributor

@joerick joerick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code looks good, but the CI failure seems relevant?

@henryiii henryiii force-pushed the henryiii/feat/uvandroid branch 2 times, most recently from 9b95e03 to a80c3ad Compare October 29, 2025 16:37
@henryiii henryiii force-pushed the henryiii/feat/uvandroid branch from a80c3ad to c561693 Compare November 6, 2025 22:03
Co-authored-by: Joe Rickerby <[email protected]>
@henryiii
Copy link
Contributor Author

henryiii commented Nov 7, 2025

I’ll rework the iOS one after this goes in. Okay to merge?

Copy link
Member

@mayeut mayeut left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a minor comment. OK as-is.

Signed-off-by: Henry Schreiner <[email protected]>
@henryiii henryiii merged commit ccbae30 into pypa:main Nov 11, 2025
35 checks passed
@henryiii henryiii deleted the henryiii/feat/uvandroid branch November 11, 2025 00:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants