[ThibWeb]

Sure – and I think it’s certainly proving to be a good thing so far! My concerns are more longer-term. I see two primarily:

(1) As uv’s governance is driven by a for-profit company, I see incentives that will eventually compromise on its benefits.

(2) Python packaging has historically been very fragmented, and more recently there’s been lots of work on standardization. That work will be impacted when users massively shift to one package installer.

Neither of those things are clear negatives, but they’re worth being aware of.

[chippiewill]

> That work will be impacted when users massively shift to one package installer.

Charlie Marsh (who founded Astral that develops uv) is very engaged in the standardisation process around Python packaging. The whole idea around uv is to be something that follows the standards as much as possible. uv has been much more aggressive about conforming than the other package managers.

[ThibWeb]

yep, I really appreciate their current efforts, but still think it’s a point of concern. Feels risky to have so much of an ecosystem resting on so few people (bus factor, governance, etc). Hopefully with Astral being a for-profit business they’ll find ways for their work to be more sustainable than other package managers’ maintainers.