potiuk commented on PR #57807: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/57807#issuecomment-3500104835
> Just a note as the person who wrote that cycles support PR -- rules_python lists the Airflow cycle workaround as part of their docs but manual intervention is still required of rules_python (majority Bazel) users. Bazel is kinda niche for us - and it's not even supported - because airflow strongly recommends to use constraints when installing https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/installation/installing-from-pypi.html - at least until this discussion concludes https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-add-ability-to-install-a-package-with-reproducible-dependencies/99497/19 and we will be able to use https://peps.python.org/pep-0751/ package lock for that purpose. It means that officially `pip` (also `uv` supports it ) is the right way of installing Airlfow, we mention that in the docs that we "hear" some people use other managers but this might lead to problems. I generally prefer that users learn from bazel documentation how to solve cycle problems when they see them happening, so having those docs in bazel not airflow seems like a good idea. > I have some new experimental work which can automatically resolve cycles, but that's very much not ecosystem status quo. I wonder if you are talking about Bazel ecosystem, or PyPA (Python packaging one) ? I belive PyPA ecosystem status is that yes - cycles are supported and nothing unusual - there are a number reasons why you would llike to have cycles - especially when there is a mutual dependency on versions of dependent packages (a requires b > 1.0, b requires a > 3.4) etc. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
