Re: Switch b4/README.txt to "pipx install" instead of "pip install"?

[Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@linux.intel.com>]

Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 04:20:11PM -0800, Marc Herbert wrote:
>> So, should the README simply switch to "pipx install"?
>
> If you'd like to submit a patch, I'll be happy to apply it.

Sent. If you'd like to fix my English or make some other minor changes,
please just go ahead and do not ask for my permission.

>> Also, I'm not an expert but I think installing from source is probably
>> better done like this:
>> 
>> git clone --recursive b4
>> cd b4
>> pipx install -e .
>> 
>> This allows running any version _and_ from the checkout directory
>> without depending on any "b4.sh" indirection.  The main difference is:
>> dependencies are isolated/protected in the virtualenv. Some users may
>> want this, others not.
>
> This would require having to rerun `pipx install -e .` each time the repo is
> pulled though, no?

Usually not. Possibly yes for upgrading dependencies or some other "big"
change like some packaging re-organization, but not for pure code
changes - that's the whole point. Give it a try?

The only drawback is the same as the advantage: too much virtual env
isolation! It hits you when you try to install and use "on the fly" some
fancy debugger, test plugin, tracing library, Python IDE,... They are
generally "not found". Then you either need to explicity add them to the
manifest, or use some obscure pipx option, or revert to "pip instal
--break-system-packages -e .", or to "b4.sh",...

No silver bullet :-( But for quickly running pure code changes, "pipx
install -e ." is in my experience the best so far.

"uv" is also very useful but much more complex. pipx really makes
simple things easy.