<!--
Thank you for contributing to uv! To help us out with reviewing, please
consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
I follow the advices from the IDE spell checker and grammar checker, fix
some typos, and improve the docs.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to uv! To help us out with reviewing, please
consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes readme typo in syntax of environments in `pyproject.toml`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
n/a
## Summary
I followed the docs to install flash-attn with uv and got the following
issue
```uv sync
Resolved 27 packages in 12ms
× Failed to build `flash-attn==2.7.4.post1`
├─▶ The build backend returned an error
╰─▶ Call to `setuptools.build_meta:__legacy__.build_wheel` failed (exit status: 1)
[stderr]
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<string>", line 8, in <module>
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'setuptools'
hint: This usually indicates a problem with the package or the build environment.
```
installing setuptools before running uv sync as done with torch helps
fix it.
## Test Plan
I tested locally before it failed to install, after it worked
I think `UV_PROJECT_ENVIRONMENT` is too complicated for use-cases where
the user wants to sync to the active environment. I don't see a
compelling reason not to make opt-in easier. I see a lot of questions
about how to deal with this warning in the issue tracker, but it seems
painful to collect them here for posterity.
A notable behavior here — we'll treat this as equivalent to
`UV_PROJECT_ENVIRONMENT` so... if you point us to a valid virtual
environment that needs to be recreated for some reason (e.g., new Python
version request), we'll happily delete it and start over.
## Summary
The docs did mention that you could set the `UV_PROJECT_ENVIRONMENT`
variable to point Uv to use the system Python environment (e.g. for use
in CI or Docker), but it did not document _how_.
Reference:
https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/6834#issuecomment-2319253359
---------
Co-authored-by: Zanie Blue <contact@zanie.dev>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to uv! To help us out with reviewing, please
consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fix invalid links in [configuring
projects](https://docs.astral.sh/uv/concepts/projects/config/#entry-points)
doc.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Since there are occasional inquiries about how to configure UV for
build-system specific features, I want to raise awareness that users
should refer to the documentation of the build system they are using for
relevant settings.
## Test Plan
Run docs service in local.
9821d58d35
---------
Signed-off-by: FishAlchemist <48265002+FishAlchemist@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zanie Blue <contact@zanie.dev>
The snippet out of context looks like a valid minimal pyproject.toml
which it is not without name and version. The line worked in layout.md
before when it was just under the minimal config.
---------
Co-authored-by: Zanie Blue <contact@zanie.dev>
- Adds a collapsible section for the project concept
- Splits the project concept document into several child documents.
- Moves the workspace and dependencies documents to under the project
section
- Adds a mkdocs plugin for redirects, so links to the moved documents
still work
I attempted to make the minimum required changes to the contents of the
documents here. There is a lot of room for improvement on the content of
each new child document. For review purposes, I want to do that work
separately. I'd prefer if the review focused on this structure and idea
rather than the content of the files.
I expect to do this to other documentation pages that would otherwise be
very nested.
The project concept landing page and nav (collapsed by default) looks
like this now:
<img width="1507" alt="Screenshot 2024-11-14 at 11 28 45 AM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/88288b09-8463-49d4-84ba-ee27144b62a5">
