# Help packaging optional application features, using extras? **URL:** \ **Category:** Packaging\ **Tags:** help\ **Created:** [March 5, 2022, 5:17pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/help-packaging-optional-application-features-using-extras/14074 "2022-03-05T17:17:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![CAM-Gerlach](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/cam-gerlach/32/3688_2.png) [@CAM-Gerlach](https://discuss.python.org/u/CAM-Gerlach)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2022, 8:14pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/help-packaging-optional-application-features-using-extras/14074/4 "2022-03-05T20:14:05Z")
Thanks for the detailed and well-written writeup; its very helpful understanding your situation and > [@LewisGaul](#): > > I try to keep up with the latest best practices, and I’ve been following this Discourse category for a while now! I’m in the process of trying to move away from having a `setup.py` , but while diving deeper into python packaging there’s a few things I’m trying to understand… I’m not entirely clear if you mean “moving away from having a `setup.py`” in terms of making your existing config declarative, or switching to a build backend other than Setuptools. If you want to move away from a dynamic `setup.py` and to a static, declarative `setup.cfg`, basically everything in your existing setup.py is directly portable to the same. A package like [setup-py-upgrade](https://github.com/asottile/setup-py-upgrade) will do most of the heavy lifting for you. You could also consider switching to another build backend, like Poetry, which makes much of the rest of this easier. A few other things I noticed: - The `pyproject.toml` is missing the most important part, the build system config; see the [appropriate section](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/tutorials/packaging-projects/#creating-pyproject-toml) of the official packaging tutorial. - It looks like you’re using PEP 420 namespace packages? They aren’t that commonly used these days, can make things much more complex, and it isn’t clear to me why they’re needed within the same project. - Consider the PyPA-recommended [`src` layout](https://hynek.me/articles/testing-packaging/), which combined with the previous should help avoid some of the current complexities in your `find_packages()` config, as well as other issues. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > - Make some features optional (e.g. I provide a CLI tool for querying online highscores, which has a few extra dependencies) This indeed sounds like a pretty idiomatic application for Extras. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > Making extra features available without making them mandatory, to minimise the default set of dependencies Yep, that’s exactly what extras are for. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > Having the option for a ‘minimal install’ that installs the minimum code/dependencies required for the app to run, i.e. a way to _remove_ dependencies from the default set Right now, extras doesn’t currently offer the ability to _remove_ deps from the default, as it gets rather complex if you specify multiple extras, some of which add deps and some of which remove them, but there have been plenty of proposals and discussion on potentially adding a “default” extra that would be a minimal set of deps for the package, upon which the other extras could build: > [@Adding a default extra\_require environment](https://discuss.python.org/t/adding-a-default-extra-require-environment/4898): > > Hi everyone, first message to this forum. I hope this will be compliant with the expected format. There has been a number of discussion opened for a long time on this topic: [https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/1139](https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/1139) (opened for 3 years). [Possible default extras/dependency categories?](https://discuss.python.org/t/possible-default-extras-dependency-categories/1537) Somehow related, I opened yesterday an issue on Github with a potential workaround which effectively is not working: [https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/8686](https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/8686) I would like to take this topic as a first is… > [@LewisGaul](#): > > I’m also confused that some examples online seem to suggest having ‘test’ as an optional extra (for running the project’s tests) - is this recommended practice? What’s the expected case where this is useful to the user performing a ‘pip install’? Opinions differ as to how idiomatic this is. Some feel it isn’t really what extras are intended for, and better ways of doing this are availible when using more advanced build backends like Poetry. On the other hand, if the latter isn’t being used, it can be more convenient, accessible and less duplicative than manually maintaining and installing `requirements-dev.txt`, or as an abstract equivalent to the frozen deps in that file. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > What’s the expected case where this is useful to the user performing a ‘pip install’? Often you’ll see test, lint and other development-related dependencies (basically the contents of your `requirements-dev.txt` file) consolidated into a `dev` extra (which is easier now that at least with current pip, extras can depend on other extras, reducing duplication). The intention is to allow developers/contributiors, and potentially repackagers, who are e.g. installing from a GitHub clone, Git tarball, sdist, etc. to more easily install and run the tests without having to manually install (and maintain a duplicate list of) dependencies in `requirements-dev.txt`, which isn’t always shipped or easily available as a file. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > `packages` and `package_data` include everything needed for all extras - I haven’t found a way to conditionally include based on requested extras Yes; if you have hefty package data that you want to separate out along with them, you’ll want to move that to a separate package. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > `install_requires` and `extras_require` include base dependencies and extra dependencies, as you’d expect (this seems to be the only part of packaging that’s actually intended to be supported by extras?) That’s right; extras are really just (more or less) groups of optional dependencies. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > `entry_points` includes one default entrypoint and one entrypoint that’s only desired when an extra is specified, although the extra marker seems to be ignored such that if the extra isn’t installed then the script is still created but won’t work since the extra dependencies aren’t installed Yes. Per the current [Entry Points spec](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/entry-points/): > Using extras for an entry point is no longer recommended. Consumers should support parsing them from existing distributions, but may then ignore them. New publishing tools need not support specifying extras. The functionality of handling extras was tied to setuptools’ model of managing ‘egg’ packages, but newer tools such as pip and virtualenv use a different model. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > The problem with this is that in my case it’s my implementation of the ‘extra’ that depends on the main application code, not the other way around… I’m a little confused by this, sorry. In general, your implementation of the extra is going to depend on the main package, creating a dependency graph as follows: ```plaintext cli_extra / \ / \ V V main_application < cli_extra deps > | | V < main app deps > ``` So I’m not sure how your case differs. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > In theory I could refactor out into package dependencies such as `minegauler -> minegauler-core` and `minegauler[bot] -> minegauler-bot -> minegauler-core` Yeah, this would be a good way to do it, as I understand. Keeping your package more modular is generally recommended, as it decreases coupling, aids reusability, replaceability and pluggability, and allows downstream users to be more specific about their own dependencies, but it does increase overhead to some degree. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > If the recommendation is to use many packages such that extras manage their own code/data/entrypoints and can be declared as simple dependencies then does it make sense to keep them together in a single repo in their own subdirectories? What you’re talking about here is basically a “lite” version of the “monorepo” approach, which has both upsides and downsides. It isn’t very common in Python packaging, but it’s what Google and some others favor, particularly in other languages and large corporate environments. It makes it substantially easier and more atomic to make broader changes that affect multiple different, discrete parts of an application/system. On the other hand, there are some usability tradeoffs in your development workflow, as most tooling isn’t really designed around it and contributors won’t expect it. See Google for some more detailed perspectives on this. > [@LewisGaul](#): > > I don’t like this because project files don’t live at the root of the repo, and I think that breaks being able to pip install using the GitHub URL… So I guess I’d be left managing 3+ dependent repositories at once. While there are certainly reasons not to use a monorepo, it is perfectly possible to still install from the GitHub URL by using the `subdirectory` parameter. See the [pip docs](https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/topics/vcs-support/#url-fragments). > [@LewisGaul](#): > > I’m left feeling this use-case isn’t really properly supported in python packaging and I might need to roll my own solution. Does anyone have any better suggestions? As I understand your needs, it _is_ more or less supported, it just requires some restructuring of your project, as many others do. I’d generally advise trying to advise against rolling your own tooling unless you’ve exhausted other options (which there appear to be a several), the benefits are clear (in this case, they don’t appear all that decisive), and you’re willing to accept the long-term maintenance risks and costs of doing so. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/help-packaging-optional-application-features-using-extras/14074)._