Ive heard that 'venv' are very problematic, but honestly, Ive never had a problem. And I used them daily. I understand that it can not be enough on some cases... that don't concern me.
I would recommend to 'python -m venv' and thats all.
I would recommend to 'python -m venv' and thats all.
The only limitation I've encountered is when moving the environment or renaming one of the parent directories. In which case it's easy to create a new one:
# optional: freeze the environment if you don't already have a requirements.txt
source .venv/bin/activate
pip freeze > requirements.txt
deactivate
# remove the old environment
rm -rf .venv
# create a new one
python3.10 -m venv .venv
# activate it
source .venv/bin/activate
# install the requirements
pip install -r requirements.txt # install the requirements
npm install
# remove it
rm -rf node_modules
For those already familiar with venvs, the above just condenses to “remove the old venv and create a new one”.
Aside from needing to know to use it. Which is certainly a problem. But python blessing a single venv-system might be worse in the long run...?
The whole reason I posted this one is to justify the "just use -m pip and -m venv" stance I wrote in the article 4 days ago.
Because you will always have a very vocal minority of people that will fill the threads with counter arguments actually increasing complexity and risks of failure.
As the article says, I think these days it's pretty safe to just use Python's built-in venv and stay away from everything else.
sudo apt install python3.X
sudo apt install python3.X-venv
python3.X -m venv .venv