-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 872
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
uv add textract
fails with parse error on requires
#9194
Comments
==
or !=
operatorsuv add textract
fails with ".* suffix can only be used with ==
or !=
operators"
uv add textract
fails with ".* suffix can only be used with ==
or !=
operators"uv add textract
fails with parse error on requires
Yeah that is an invalid specifier -- wildcards are only allowed on |
Oh sorry, I think this is actually |
If the error is purely setuptools related, why does pip install work with the same package specifier? |
Are pip and uv using the same version of Python? Is the package already cached by pip from some other install on your machine? Do you see the same behavior with |
Same version of Python. Also correctly installs with |
Okay thanks, got it. That means the package is indeed broken with that version of setuptools, and the same breakage will occur in future versions of PEP, once |
For me locally, |
Fair enough. In fact, I went to file a bug at textract and discovered this is already filed with them as an issue: deanmalmgren/textract#533 (I didn't think to check there first because it seemed to work with pip). Not that this necessarily matters to you, but it doesn't look very likely that's going to be fixed any time soon, as the package appears... lightly maintained. It would be good to have some way to work around this problem for similar issues, but that probably has to be on the setuptools side. |
Running
uv add textract==1.6.4
on uv version0.3.2
(on OSX if relevant) produces the following error:The package in question pip installs fine.
This is presumably just the uv requirement parser being stricter than pip's, and this particular requirements construct is just sufficiently unusual to see in the wild that it hasn't come up before.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: