Feature request: Generate requirements.txt from uv.lock

[zeevro]

It would be beneficial to me (and I think in general) to be able to generate a requirements.txt file from the uv.lock file. It would be useful for installing requirements without having to resolve dependencies using a different installer in environments where uv is not installed, and also for having other tools that don't support the uv.lock file format (e.g. Dependabot) be able to know the project's pinned dependencies.

[charliermarsh]

I think something like this is reasonable but it probably won't happen immediately. (PEP 751 is ultimately a better solution but I'd still support requirements.txt in the short-term.)

[zeevro]

Also, we already have a way to generate requirements.txt in the form of uv pip compile but it's rather tricky to have that match my uv.lock, especially if it's done after a while and some dependencies have had new versions released.

[zanieb]

It doesn't really seem like a great outcome for users to have both a uv.lock and requirements.txt though

[Samuel-Therrien-Beslogic]

It doesn't really seem like a great outcome for users to have both a uv.lock and requirements.txt though

If using uv sync which creates a uv.lock file in a Docker, does uv sync take care of setting up references to the venv correctly ?
https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/integration/docker/#installing-a-package makes no mention of uv sync or uv.lock

[zanieb]

Can you clarify what you mean by "references to the venv"?

I haven't written documentation for using the new APIs in Docker yet.

[Samuel-Therrien-Beslogic]

Can you clarify what you mean by "references to the venv"?

I'm talking about this section of the doc:

To use the system Python environment by default, set the UV_SYSTEM_PYTHON variable:

ENV UV_SYSTEM_PYTHON=1

Alternatively, a virtual environment can be created and activated:

RUN uv venv /opt/venv
# Use the virtual environment automatically
ENV VIRTUAL_ENV=/opt/venv
# Place entry points in the environment at the front of the path
ENV PATH="/opt/venv/bin:$PATH"

I'm assuming if I use RUN uv sync --locked instead (to make sure the installation respects the lock file), that I don't need to mess around with venv setup ? (I just need to update my docker entry point command to use uv run instead of python, ref to our current transition to UV https://github.com/BesLogic/releaf-canopeum/pull/195/files#diff-1fc9c5328b5af6b1065537cb89aa7298eb7ba1d338b5bee8fd07553b6f56576f )

I haven't written documentation for using the new APIs in Docker yet.

That's a simple explanation as to why it's not referenced ^^

---

I'm just ensuring that the uv.lock file should be usable in Docker. Which removes the need for this feature request for me.

[zanieb]

uv sync always creates a virtual environment right now, so yeah you'd either need to opt for configuring it (as described above) or use uv run instead of invoking python.

We may add support for syncing to a system environment (as requested in #5964) to make this a little simpler in CI and containers.

I'm just ensuring that the uv.lock file should be usable in Docker

Yeah it definitely is. I'll try to update the documentation soon.

[matmair]

It doesn't really seem like a great outcome for users to have both a uv.lock and requirements.txt though

I have this use case right now; maybe the insight is useful. There are strict requirements only to deploy stable software in the deployment targets. That rules out uv on the deployment targets by our current rules. The devs still want to use uv and uv project management and it is pretty confusing to have the requirements.txt that is used for deployments and the uv.lock within the repo.

This can be solved by CI/CD but reducing steps and complexity is the signature of uv/ruff for me.
Loving the tools btw, y'all are doing gods work

[zanieb]

What makes uv unstable?

Thanks for sharing your use-case! Glad you like the tools :)

[matmair]

SemVer. I do not make the rules sadly.

[jfgordon2]

I also am finding a need to produce a requirements.txt, but just for non-dev packages. The current path I have in our pipeline looks something like:

uv sync --no-dev
uv pip freeze > requirements.txt

Then we can check that requirements file against safety (or dependabot) for vulnerabilities, then do a uv pip install -r requirements.txt --target dist so we can package it up along with src into a zip file to deploy to a lambda function.

It definitely would be easier to operate directly against the uv.lock, but in the meantime converting that directly into a requirements.txt for compatibility with other tools would be great.

[chrisrodrigue]

+1 to what @jfgordon2 said.

I think supporting requirements.txt input and output is wise to maintain compatibility with legacy tooling that isn’t yet caught up with PEP 621.

I have documented one such use case for requirements.txt here: #6422

[phi-friday]

As you mentioned in #6429 , will there be a feature to create a requirements.txt including tool.uv.dev-dependencies?

[charliermarsh]

Yeah, that would probably be included in the scope of this.

[zeevro]

I'm using this as a make-shift solution for now.

uvx --from=yq tomlq -r '.package[]|.name+((.source|" @ "+(.url//"git+\(.git//empty)"))//"==\(.version)")' uv.lock >requirements.txt

[charliermarsh]

Respect!

[SamEdwardes]

I like the idea of uv export!

I am curious what are the implications of doing this:

uv pip compile pyproject.toml -o requirements.txt

In this case is my uv.lock ignored and there is a risk the generated requirements.txt will be different?

[charliermarsh]

In this case is my uv.lock ignored and there is a risk the generated requirements.txt will be different?

Yeah, the uv pip interface never touches the lockfile. You can use the uv pip workflow if you want, but you lose the benefits of the unified uv sync, uv lock, uv run APIs.