Question: why is --no-deps --no-build-isolation set?

[henryiii]

Conda-build sets PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION and PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES (See https://github.com/conda/conda-build/blob/0ad4bb6829b440caae9ae8a4db14ab1ff3788ab7/conda_build/build.py#L3020). Why is it also being set in every recipe in

grayskull/grayskull/strategy/pypi.py

Line 67 in 5b29307

"<{ PYTHON }} -m pip install . -vv --no-deps --no-build-isolation"

? There are other flags set by conda-build, so this seem like an arbitrary set to re-specify on the command line.

I think both¹ of these should be removed to allow conda-build to specify everything needed for pip to work and keep the recipes as simple as possible. Or all the other flags should be added too.

Notice in conda-forge/packaging-feedstock#32 where --no-build-isolation was being added to a recipe based on greyskull.

Footnotes

1. Not completely sure PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES is the same as --no-deps, as it seems to be it should be PIP_NO_DEPS. The translation is automatic, and there isn't a --no-dependencies flag. But I am sure that PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION is correct. So at least that one could be trimmed here. Edit: tested and PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES does work ↩

[matthewfeickert]

Notice in conda-forge/packaging-feedstock#32 where --no-build-isolation was being added to a recipe based on greyskull.

I've also added this to almost every Scikit-HEP package feedstock, and others, given grayskull's recommendations.

• MNT: Add setuptools build backend to host requirements conda-forge/mplhep-feedstock#87
• MNT: Use noarch python {{ python_min }} variable conda-forge/cabinetry-feedstock#5
• MNT: Rerender the recipe with grayskull conda-forge/pyhf-feedstock#27
• MNT: Remove uproot-base build ouptut conda-forge/uproot-feedstock#158
• FIX: Set python_min of Python 3.8 conda-forge/hatchling-feedstock#59
• feat: Add servicex client conda-forge/staged-recipes#27997
• feat: Add plothist conda-forge/staged-recipes#27414

[henryiii]

FYI, I tested PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES and it does work.

[matthewfeickert]

rattler-build does the same thing as conda-build

    // python variables
    // hard-code this because we never want pip's build isolation
    // https://github.com/conda/conda-build/pull/2972#discussion_r198290241
    //
    // Note that pip env "NO" variables are inverted logic.
    //    PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION=False means don't use build isolation.
    insert!(vars, "PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION", "False");
    // Some other env vars to have pip ignore dependencies. We supply them ourselves instead.
    insert!(vars, "PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES", "True");
    insert!(vars, "PIP_IGNORE_INSTALLED", "True");

but their docs show using --no-deps --no-build-isolation as well. So cc @wolfv on if there is a reason I'm missing for having duplicated flags in the recipe files.

[wolfv]

Let's get rid of it! :) PRs always welcome

[matthewfeickert]

Let's get rid of it! :) PRs always welcome

Thanks @wolfv. This is useful to know that I'm not missing anything. I'll PR things next week!

[matthewfeickert]

So seems that we should revert grayskull's recommendation and also conda/conda-build#4960.

[wolfv]

I think the only thing that's confusing me right now is that the comment says that the NO env vars are inverted, but then we do:

# we want _NO_ build isolation
PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION=False
# we want _NO_ dependencies from pip
PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES=True

Although I am also quite sure that I copied this from conda-build and that it has been working fine :)

[wolfv]

Too bad they didn't go with more clear PIP_BUILD_ISOLATION={disabled, enabled} :)

[wolfv]

pypa/pip#5735