Is there a reason to not support pip? I understand Python packaging has been a complete disaster for many years, but recently things seem to be getting better, complex scientific libs have working pypi packages, uv is very popular, and I am seeing conda and similar tools recommended less and less.
I am currently using Fenics as part of a complex python pipeline that uses a lot of other packages, and it would be very convenient to be able to install it all the same way I install everything else. It would also make things a lot easier for new users.
I was starting to look into this as well since conda forge is a bit inconvenient for my use case. Relatively naive question, but could you not use the openmpi or mpich wheels published in PyPi?
If you fork DOLFINx you are welcome to try executing the action which produces the wheels as a build artifact. I’m not willing to distribute them at the moment, early days.
Awesome, thanks @jackhale I’ll give it a go when I get some free time. As for the PETSc, I haven’t looked how they ship their PyPi wheels, but is there a reason why the registry-uploaded ones are not suitable?
I have similiar problems:D what is working well for me is using spack to install fenicsx and pip in the same env. After the “hard“ installations, i can use the pip inside the env to install addtional pip packages:D
spack add py-pip
spack add py-fenics-dolfinx+petsc4py+slepc4py cflags="-O3" fflags="-O3"
spack concretize -f
spack install
#With active env
pip list
pip install