bicep VS setuptools

I thought it was a good idea, but Bicep did not agree. I have submitted a proposal to the Bicep team for how this can be allowed. Vote for this issue if you agree!

Bicep has limitations which makes it non-declarative even though it is marketed as declarative: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manag...

MSFT is trying to add features to make this better, but it is not in production yet: https://github.com/Azure/bicep/issues/10460

Additionally, Bicep does not support interacting with Azure Active Directory: https://github.com/Azure/bicep/issues/7724

So it really is not very useful. Terraform is better in almost every single conceivable way.

Github: https://github.com/Azure/bicep/issues/9569

Since its launch Bicep has become popular within the IT community. You can find blog posts, tweets, conference sessions, and plenty of interaction on the official Bicep GitHub space. Bicep became production ready at v0.3. It is supported by Microsoft Support Plans.

Please give Azure Bicep a try. You get a really simple experience with all the benefits of using the platform native capabilities https://github.com/Azure/bicep

I was on the bicep call last month but that doesn't mean I didn't miss the announcement, it looks like they are getting close though - https://github.com/Azure/bicep/issues/8598

Bicep, the open source project used by Visual Studio Code to extend its capabilities, has finally arrived in Visual Studio, enabling users of Microsoft’s flagship IDE to use some of Bicep’s most popular features in the same program they have been using since they were introduced to it — in other words, Visual Studio itself.

In addition, check the similar issue on GitHub.

There is an ongoing thread here https://github.com/Azure/bicep/issues/1853

To be fair, that seems to have been a 2 year warning:

https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/commit/3544de73b3662a27fa...

There was/is some discussion in setuptools about how to normalize the tarball (https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/2133#issuecomment-...) coudl something similar be applied to Building Python itself ?

❯ yay -Sy python-setuptools python-jaraco.text ❯ pip show setuptools Name: setuptools Version: 67.7.0 Summary: Easily download, build, install, upgrade, and uninstall Python packages Home-page: https://github.com/pypa/setuptools Author: Python Packaging Authority Author-email: [email protected] License: Location: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages Requires: jaraco.text, more-itertools, ordered-set, packaging, platformdirs, tomli, validate-pyproject Required-by: Cerberus, fs, httpie, input-remapper, pecan, pycountry, python-lsp-server, reuse, setuptools-scm, zc.lockfile

Link: https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/3772

For example, when it comes to Python, one option is to use the same packaging system that a huge number of open-source libraries and tools are published with. You can use setuptools or Hatch to build a "packaged" version of your code, and publish it to either the public PyPi repository or an internal one that you set up. Then your users can use pip to install your package, automatically fetch its dependencies, and keep it up to date, just like any other Python module.

You could maybe make it a click Application, and use setuptools.

Not sure how advisable it is to depend on setup.py given the setuptools team has very clearly stated that they are not interested in supporting any cli commands anymore including setup.py install. Relavant PR