Greg Roodt

Thanks for the initial review @aignas > Having an interface like: Yes. I like the look of it. We will keep iterating on it. The interface you have there is...

> * A rule (not a macro) that does `uv pip compile` and uses a `uv` toolchain and the `python` toolchain to get the tools. This allows us to pass...

> * Is `pin` the best name? Should we instead use `lock`? You're probably right. I use them interchangeably a lot of the time, but it's probably better to be...

Thanks both! I'll hopefully have some time today and I think my goal will be to add a simple toolchain. It's likely that it could be merged independently even if...

They're unrelated for the most part. This PR is to assist with a better implementation of compile_pip_requirements. That issue was more how we could align to bring some code across...

> Creating https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/3347 file is in the works, is that going to be considered as well We are aware of that. The PR is still in development and discussions with...

> The gist is that we can keep implementation specific names in `private/pypi` > whilst the public API can be whatever we choose. I see we have > `compile_pip_requirements` right...

This PR is now ready for another pass @aignas @rickeylev Please read updated description at top of PR. It's got the "bones" of a functioning toolchain. Before I spend more...

@aignas @rickeylev Thanks for the reviews. Here's what Im thinking now in terms of next steps. 1. Focus on merging a complete toolchain only. We can spar on the interface...

> My vote would be to keep everything in this PR under python/private, so that we have time (a few more PRs) to iron out the interfaces and docs. >...