Difference in use cases between setuptools-rust and pyo3-pack

[rth]

The first line of the readme currently states,

You might want to check out pyo3-pack, the successor to this project, which allows to develop, build and upload without any configuration

However, if I have a python package with a few rust extensions, one cannot use pyo3-pack to build wheels for it (that would also include the python code and possibly some C Python extensions), right? So in that use case, setuptools-rust will always be needed unless I am missing something?

Maybe that could be more clearly stated both in the pyo3-pack and setuptools-rust readme? I started by using pyo3-pack as it was advertised as "better" before realizing that setuptools-rust is more appropriate for my use-case.

[althonos]

Indeed, I've been using setuptools-rust for a project with several (optional) Rust extensions, whereas pyo3-pack can only a single Rust-only module for Python.

[konstin]

I'm definitely open to changing the readme to make it more clear what pyo3-pack can and can't do. I think the most basic description of what it does is "build a rust crate into a wheel". (I'd also like to support also having python code in the wheel, but that's nothing I could advertise as of now). I'd still like to point to pyo3-pack in the readme since it's more beginner friendly and not setuptools based, but it should be a more humble statement.

Regarding the multiple python extensions: Is there a special reason why you need multiple extensions and don't just bundle everything in a single cdylib?

[althonos]

Other usecase: you want provide a source release to PyPI if you cannot provide wheels for all the required platforms, end-users will still be able to use pip install to build you library until pyo3 supports PEP517.

[rth]

Closing as resolved.