Add a way to read env spec from a single script about pixi

[baszalmstra]

I guess this would also be in line with pixi runx. (cant find the original issue about that)

[abkfenris]

Ha! I was just thinking of mentioning PEP 723 here this morning after hearing one of the podcasts talking about it.

It's a little different than #624 but related in that it doesn't require a full package, but instead can work with a single file with a TOML comment. Pipx supports it but doesn't describe the support well https://pipx.pypa.io/stable/changelog/#142

[ruben-arts]

I'll close as unplanned now, thanks for understanding @ocefpaf

[ruben-arts]

If runx would accept the --spec option like @jaimergp proposes, then a comment with: pixi runx --spec pkga --spec pkgb --spec pkgc>=1.2.3 -- python main.py would suffice right?

I personally see more in the runx idea, especially as it is not bound to just python.

@ocefpaf What is the reason for conda-execute to be marked unmaintained?

[ocefpaf]

@ocefpaf What is the reason for conda-execute to be marked unmaintained?

No one to pick it up. If you want to revive it, please let us know.

I personally see more in the runx idea, especially as it is not bound to just python.

BTW, conda execute was not Python only, you could declare any environment in the header.

I guess that runx would be the first step and something like conda-execute would use it to read the package spec from the comment header in the script. It would be a "usability sugar."

[ruben-arts]

I would like to close this as I see this could be cool but it is not something I would want pixi to do without the runx mechanism. If that is in we can always revisit this. But runx is not planned yet so that might take some time.

[ocefpaf]

It is up to you. I'd like for it to be open, of course I opened it ;-p, but if it is not planned and/or an unwanted feature, go ahead and do the house cleaning necessary to keep the issue tracker manageable the way the devs here wish it to be.