Question: why is --no-deps --no-build-isolation set?

[henryiii]

Conda-build sets PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION and PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES (See https://github.com/conda/conda-build/blob/0ad4bb6829b440caae9ae8a4db14ab1ff3788ab7/conda_build/build.py#L3020). Why is it also being set in every recipe in https://github.com/conda/grayskull/blob/5b293078ea4fb17572dfa63ee1dde8612d884f00/grayskull/strategy/pypi.py#L67 ? There are other flags set by conda-build, so this seem like an arbitrary set to re-specify on the command line.

I think both[^1] of these should be removed to allow conda-build to specify everything needed for pip to work and keep the recipes as simple as possible. Or all the other flags should be added too.

Notice in https://github.com/conda-forge/packaging-feedstock/pull/32 where --no-build-isolation was being added to a recipe based on greyskull.

[^1]: Not completely sure PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES is the same as --no-deps, as it seems to be it should be PIP_NO_DEPS. The translation is automatic, and there isn't a --no-dependencies flag. But I am sure that PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION is correct. So at least that one could be trimmed here. Edit: tested and PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES does work

[matthewfeickert]

Notice in conda-forge/packaging-feedstock#32 where --no-build-isolation was being added to a recipe based on greyskull.

I've also added this to almost every Scikit-HEP package feedstock, and others, given grayskull's recommendations.

• https://github.com/conda-forge/mplhep-feedstock/pull/87
• https://github.com/conda-forge/cabinetry-feedstock/pull/5
• https://github.com/conda-forge/pyhf-feedstock/pull/27
• https://github.com/conda-forge/uproot-feedstock/pull/158
• https://github.com/conda-forge/hatchling-feedstock/pull/59
• https://github.com/conda-forge/staged-recipes/pull/27997
• https://github.com/conda-forge/staged-recipes/pull/27414

[henryiii]

FYI, I tested PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES and it does work.

[matthewfeickert]

rattler-build does the same thing as conda-build

    // python variables
    // hard-code this because we never want pip's build isolation
    // https://github.com/conda/conda-build/pull/2972#discussion_r198290241
    //
    // Note that pip env "NO" variables are inverted logic.
    //    PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION=False means don't use build isolation.
    insert!(vars, "PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION", "False");
    // Some other env vars to have pip ignore dependencies. We supply them ourselves instead.
    insert!(vars, "PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES", "True");
    insert!(vars, "PIP_IGNORE_INSTALLED", "True");

but their docs show using --no-deps --no-build-isolation as well. So cc @wolfv on if there is a reason I'm missing for having duplicated flags in the recipe files.

[wolfv]

Let's get rid of it! :) PRs always welcome

[matthewfeickert]

Let's get rid of it! :) PRs always welcome

Thanks @wolfv. This is useful to know that I'm not missing anything. I'll PR things next week!

[matthewfeickert]

So seems that we should revert grayskull's recommendation and also https://github.com/conda/conda-build/pull/4960.

[wolfv]

I think the only thing that's confusing me right now is that the comment says that the NO env vars are inverted, but then we do:

# we want _NO_ build isolation
PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION=False
# we want _NO_ dependencies from pip
PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES=True

Although I am also quite sure that I copied this from conda-build and that it has been working fine :)

[wolfv]

Too bad they didn't go with more clear PIP_BUILD_ISOLATION={disabled, enabled} :)

[wolfv]

https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/5735

[henryiii]

These are automatically generated from the command line flags. Every command line flag in pip has an environment variable version, but that’s why they’re not customized.

[ocefpaf]

Conda-build sets PIP_NO_BUILD_ISOLATION and PIP_NO_DEPENDENCIES (See https://github.com/conda/conda-build/blob/0ad4bb6829b440caae9ae8a4db14ab1ff3788ab7/conda_build/build.py#L3020). Why is it also being set in every recipe in

We chose to be explicit in grayskull b/c conda-build has dropped those in the past in buggy releases and, those flags are not set in when using multiple outputs. I prefer to keep them explicit as they also inform users/recipe creators of what is happening under the hood.

[matthewfeickert]

I prefer to keep them explicit as they also inform users/recipe creators of what is happening under the hood.

This is fine, but just to give some context (copying from https://github.com/conda-forge/staged-recipes/pull/28268#discussion_r1850849098 for findability by other people) I always assumed that the fact that grayskull had this recommendation of having --no-deps --no-build-isolation in the recipe meant that conda-forge wasn't using these flags anywhere as my assumption is that "If I have to specify something as the user then this means that it is my responsibility and that it isn't being dealt with elsewhere."

So I took away the opposite of the intended message.

[henryiii]

Personally, I think I'd assume that I could remove these flags and then depend on build isolation working - which is very much not the case. I'm not fond of do-nothing flags that can be removed without any affect. And the flags are somewhat arbitrary; personally if I were to put one in it would be --no-build-isolation, I don't think --no-deps is any more important than, say, --ignored-installed, which is not included).

If it doesn't work in multiple outputs, that's a bit of an issue - is this all flags, or just some?