Malte Poll

I tried to understand why this happens. Runfiles containing the toolchain are collected in `_get_runtime_details` as `runtime_files`: https://github.com/bazel-contrib/rules_python/blob/cda58775c6fb1bfba93b3bbc55e8ce003a56960b/python/private/py_executable.bzl#L1247-L1258 The toolchain (including `bin/python` and the standard library) are passed into `_get_base_runfiles_for_binary`...

This is the Python toolchain setup in `MODULE.bazel`: ``` python = use_extension("@rules_python//python/extensions:python.bzl", "python") python.toolchain( python_version = "3.13", ) use_repo(python, "python_3_13") ```

> Ah, so you are using the hermetic toolchain, but you want to replace it during packaging? That's correct. I want to use the same Python _version_ in Bazel and...

I'm also considering just writing my own Aspect that collects `srcs` and `data` from `py_library` and friends, but I'm sure it's not easy to do this correctly.

Could anyone who is affected by this create a minimal reproducible example? Just a small example project that people can use to easily reproduce the problem? One troubleshooting step I...

I keep thinking about this issue. It would be a useful addition in many Bazel rules. The last instance I found is rules_img, which currently doesn't offer a module extension...

> Would isolated extension usage help? In my specific case it would solve the name clash issue and enable the use of facts. I agree that isolated extensions would not...

Thanks for offering to make your ruleset the new, official, modern replacement. Just confirming that I'm offering to help with reviews.

Accepted at the rules authors SIG meeting on december 10.

That's exactly what I was thinking about. The plan sounds good to me. To avoid breaking users, we should probably still re-export the provider in the old locations in rules_pkg...