roadmap VS publishing-python-packages

I wish Poetry were PEP-621 compliant though. [1]

Currently, it uses a proprietary configuration group (or "tool section", as they seem to call it in `pyproject.toml` speech).

[1]: https://github.com/python-poetry/roadmap/issues/3

https://github.com/python-poetry/roadmap/issues/3

Sorry for the late reply. I cannot recall the exact source, but I found this issue in the poetry repo: https://github.com/python-poetry/roadmap/issues/3. IIUC, they are trying to make poetry compliant with PEP621 but the PR was not merged yet? Will update the original comment to add this nuance.

I believe that Poetry does conform to PEP 518 (i.e. it specifies `[build-system]requires`), but not to the `dependencies` part of PEP 621 [1]. There are plans for this in the future though [2].

[1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0621/

[2] https://github.com/python-poetry/roadmap/issues/3

I don't agree with all the points from the article, but I do agree there is a depth of learning to be had about creating packages (and doing it repeatably/scalably). I wrote a book about creating Python packages that just came out: https://pypackages.com

Even this book doesn't cover all options in each area, and it skips almost wholly over conda because I have no personal experience using it. conda and the work in the scientific community adds complexity both to the creation and the consumption side of packaging, and that's one area I'm not sure this post covers all the nuance of when considering how a "one size fits all" solution might work in practice.

If reading code is more your thing, you might want to check out the code companion.