flit VS pip-audit

Queries on https://github.com/pypa/flit/tree/main/flit_core/flit_core (omitted tests/)

(Pdb) print(indexer.query("def normalize_dist_name(name: str, version: str) -> str:"))

If it's pure Python, the only packaging file you need is `pyproject.toml`. You can fill that file with packaging metadata per PEP 518 and PEP 621, including using modern build tooling like flit[1] for the build backend and build[2] for the frontend.

With that, you entire package build (for all distribution types) should be reducible to `python -m build`. Here's an example of a full project doing everything with just `pyproject.toml`[3] (FD: my project).

[1]: https://github.com/pypa/flit

[2]: https://github.com/pypa/build

[3]: https://github.com/pypa/pip-audit

I published a very simple project flit_pytest_circleci_template that uses: * [flit](https://github.com/pypa/flit) to build a package. * pytest to test it * circleci to run the above and publish the package to pypi whenever a source file is committed. This is the hard part IMO as I do not know circleci well (and didn't know it at all when I started this project).

flit

I hadn't heard of flit, it does seem like it's not brand new on the scene, however it is primarily a single contributor:

https://github.com/takluyver/flit/graphs/contributors

With a title like this, I'd be expecting to see an article describing the latest tools and recommendations from the PyPA.

Next up is making sure, none of the dependencies used throughout the project brings with it any already identified security issue. The makefile target audit, invokes the handy tool pip-audit.

Here is my "one true" Makefile for Python projects[1]. The skeleton gets tweaked slightly each time, but it's served me well for 4+ years.

[1]: https://github.com/pypa/pip-audit/blob/main/Makefile

Why use this over the established https://pypi.org/project/pip-audit/ ?

https://pypi.org/project/pip-audit/ details usage and the GitHub Action install.

If it's pure Python, the only packaging file you need is `pyproject.toml`. You can fill that file with packaging metadata per PEP 518 and PEP 621, including using modern build tooling like flit[1] for the build backend and build[2] for the frontend.

With that, you entire package build (for all distribution types) should be reducible to `python -m build`. Here's an example of a full project doing everything with just `pyproject.toml`[3] (FD: my project).

[1]: https://github.com/pypa/flit

[2]: https://github.com/pypa/build

[3]: https://github.com/pypa/pip-audit

- repo: https://github.com/trailofbits/pip-audit rev: v2.4.3 hooks: - id: pip-audit args: [ "-r", "requirements.txt" ] ci: # Leave pip-audit to only run locally and not in CI # pre-commit.ci does not allow network calls skip: [ pip-audit ]

This is really nicely written; kudos to the author for compiling a great deal of information in a readable format.

If I can be forgiven one nitpick: Poetry does not use a PEP 518-style[1] build configuration by default, which means that its use of `pyproject.toml` is slightly out of pace with the rest of the Python packaging ecosystem. That isn't to say that it isn't excellent, because it is! But you the standards have come a long way, and you can now use `pyproject.toml` with any build backend as long as you use the standard metadata.

By way of example, here's a project that's completely PEP 517 and PEP 518 compatible without needing a setup.py or setup.cfg[2]. Everything goes through pyproject.toml.

[1]: https://peps.python.org/pep-0518/

[2]: https://github.com/trailofbits/pip-audit/blob/main/pyproject...

Checking could be done if something like this eventually shows up in safety or pip-audit.

Something like python's pip-audit. For commercial solutions I know there's Snyk and Jfrog we can always purchase, but I'm interested to see if there's an open-source tool that can do this.