[lmm]

> I'm not sure it is discouraged so much as just not what people did in Python-land for a long time. It's obviously the right thing to do, it's totally doable, it's just inertia and habit that might mean it isn't done.

Pinning obviously the wrong thing, it only works if everyone does it and if everyone does it then making changes becomes very hard. The right thing is to have deterministic dependency resolution so that dependencies don't change under you.

[WillDaSilva]

When they suggest you pin your dependencies, they don't just mean your direct dependencies, but rather all transitive dependencies. You can take this further by having a lock file that account for different Python versions, operating systems, and CPI architectures – for instance , by using UV or Poetry – but a simple `pip freeze` is often sufficient.

[epistasis]

That works for your project, but then nobody can include you as a library without conflicts.

But having that lock file will allow somebody to reconstruct your particular moment in time in the future. Its just that those lock files do not exist for 99.9% of Python projects in time.

[dagw]

That works for your project, but then nobody can include you as a library without conflicts.

I think this is the core to much misunderstandings and arguments around this question. Some people are writing code that only they will run, on a python they've installed, on hardware they control. Others are writing code that has to work on lots of different versions of python, on lots of different hardware, and when being run in all kinds of strange scenarios. These two groups have quite different needs and don't always understand each other and the problems they face.

[zelphirkalt]

A lib can still lock its dependencies and have version ranges declared at the same time. The lock file is an artifact than is used to reproducibly build the lib, while the version ranges are used to see, whether some other project can use the lib.

It is only a matter of tooling. Locking ones dependencies remains the right thing to do, even for a lib.

[epistasis]

This is of course the right answer. But unfortunately it has only recently become supported by packaging tooling, and is extremely uncommon to encounter in the wild.

[LtWorf]

If you include a range you have to test with everything in the range.

[LtWorf]

For some reason the "secure" thing to do is considered to be to pin everything and then continuously bump everything to latest, to get the security fixes.

At which point one might directly not pin, but that's "insecure" (https://scorecard.dev/)