Support multiple root modules in namespace packages by enumerating them:
```toml
[tool.uv.build-backend]
module-name = ["foo", "bar"]
```
This allows applications with multiple root packages without migrating
to workspaces. Since those are regular module names (we iterate over
them an process each one like a single module names), it allows
combining dotted (namespace) names and regular names. It also
technically allows combining regular and stub modules, even though this
is even less recommends.
We don't recommend this structure (please use a workspace instead, or
structure everything in one root module), but it reduces the number of
cases that need `namespace = true`.
Fixes#14435Fixes#14438
---------
Co-authored-by: Zanie Blue <contact@zanie.dev>
The uv build backend has gone through some feedback cycles, we expect no
more major configuration changes, and we're ready to take the next step:
The uv build backend in stable.
This PR stabilizes:
* Using `uv_build` as build backend
* The documentation of the uv build backend
* The direct build fast path, where uv doesn't use PEP 517 if you're
using `uv_build` in a compatible version.
* `uv build --list`, which is limited to `uv_build`.
It does not:
* Make `uv_build` the default on `uv init`
* Make `--package` the default on `uv init`
I think the build backend docs as a whole are now ready for review. I
only made a small change here.
---------
Co-authored-by: Zanie Blue <contact@zanie.dev>
Unlike regular packages, specifying all `__init__.py` directories for a
namespace package would be very verbose There is e.g.
https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/tree/main/src/poetry, which has
18 modules, or https://github.com/googleapis/api-common-protos which is
inconsistently nested. For both the Google Cloud SDK, there are both
packages with a single module and those with complex structures, with
many having multiple modules due to versioning through `<module>_v1`
versioning. The Azure SDK seems to use one module per package (it's not
explicitly documented but seems to follow from the process in
https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk/python_design.html#azure-sdk-distribution-packages
and
ccb0e03a3d/doc/dev/packaging.md).
For simplicity with complex projects, we add a `namespace = true` switch
which disabled checking for an `__init__.py`. We only check that there's
no `<module_root>/<module_name>/__init__.py` and otherwise add the whole
`<module_root>/<module_name>` folder. This comes at the cost of
`namespace = true` effectively creating an opt-out from our usual checks
that allows creating an almost entirely arbitrary package.
For simple projects with only a single module, the module name can be
dotted to point to the target module, so the build still gets checked:
```toml
[tool.uv.build-backend]
module-name = "poetry.core"
```
## Alternatives
### Declare all packages
We could make `module-name` a list and allow or require declaring all
packages:
```toml
[tool.uv.build-backend]
module-name = ["cloud_sdk.service.storage", "cloud_sdk.service.storage_v1", "cloud_sdk.billing.storage"]
```
Or for Poetry:
```toml
[tool.uv.build-backend]
module-name = [
"poetry.config",
"poetry.console",
"poetry.inspection",
"poetry.installation",
"poetry.json",
"poetry.layouts",
"poetry.masonry",
"poetry.mixology",
"poetry.packages",
"poetry.plugins",
"poetry.publishing",
"poetry.puzzle",
"poetry.pyproject",
"poetry.repositories",
"poetry.toml",
"poetry.utils",
"poetry.vcs",
"poetry.version"
]
```
### Support multiple namespaces
We could also allow namespace packages with multiple root level module:
```toml
[tool.uv.build-backend]
module-name = ["cloud_sdk.my_ext", "local_sdk.my_ext"]
```
For lack of use cases, we delegate this to creating a workspace with one
package per module.
## Implementation
Due to the more complex options for the module name, I'm moving
verification on deserialization later, dropping the source span we'd get
from serde. We also don't show similarly named directories anymore.
---------
Co-authored-by: Andrew Gallant <andrew@astral.sh>
Extends https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/13841 — I'll drop that
commit later after that pull request merges but it's small.
I find the split into a "Configuration" section awkward and don't think
it's helping us. Everything moved into the "Concepts" section, except
the "Environment variables" page which definitely belongs in the
reference and the "Installer" page which is fairly niche and seems
better in the reference.
Before / After
<img
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/80d8304b-17da-4900-a5f4-c3ccac96fcc5"
width="400">
