Python 3.3 includes in its standard library the new package venv
. What does it do, and how does it differ from all the other packages that seem to match the reg
Nov 2020 Update
We have two new stances on virtual environments (both official):
April 2020 Update
I was searching for same when I came across this post. I think this issue of what tool to use is quite confusing and difficult for new Python users like me. This is directly from PyPA website regarding pipenv:
While this tutorial covers the pipenv project as a tool that focuses primarily on the needs of Python application development rather than Python library development, the project itself is currently working through several process and maintenance issues that are preventing bug fixes and new features from being published (with the entirety of 2019 passing without a new release). This means that in the near term, pipenv still suffers from several quirks and performance problems without a clear timeline for resolution of those isses.
While this remains the case, project maintainers are likely to want to investigate Other Tools for Application Dependency Management for use instead of, or together with, pipenv.
Assuming the April 2020 pipenv release goes ahead as planned, and the release after that also remains on track, then this caveat on the tutorial will be removed. If those releases don’t remain on track, then the tutorial itself will be removed, and replaced with a discussion page on the available dependency management options.
I would just avoid the use of virtualenv
after Python3.3+ and instead use the standard shipped library venv
. To create a new virtual environment you would type:
$ python3 -m venv <MYVENV>
virtualenv
tries to copy the Python binary into the virtual environment's bin directory. However it does not update library file links embedded into that binary, so if you build Python from source into a non-system directory with relative path names, the Python binary breaks. Since this is how you make a copy distributable Python, it is a big flaw. BTW to inspect embedded library file links on OS X, use otool
. For example from within your virtual environment, type:
$ otool -L bin/python
python:
@executable_path/../Python (compatibility version 3.4.0, current version 3.4.0)
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1238.0.0)
Consequently I would avoid virtualenvwrapper
and pipenv
. pyvenv
is deprecated. pyenv
seems to be used often where virtualenv
is used but I would stay away from it also since I think venv
also does what pyenv
is built for.
venv
creates virtual environments in the shell that are fresh and sandboxed, with user-installable libraries, and it's multi-python safe. Fresh because virtual environments only start with the standard libraries that ship with python, you have to install any other libraries all over again with pip install
while the virtual environment is active. Sandboxed because none of these new library installs are visible outside the virtual environment, so you can delete the whole environment and start again without worrying about impacting your base python install. User-installable libraries because the virtual environment's target folder is created without sudo
in some directory you already own, so you won't need sudo
permissions to install libraries into it. Finally it is multi-python safe, since when virtual environments activate, the shell only sees the python version (3.4, 3.5 etc.) that was used to build that virtual environment.
pyenv
is similar to venv
in that it lets you manage multiple python environments. However with pyenv
you can't conveniently rollback library installs to some start state and you will likely need admin
privileges at some point to update libraries. So I think it is also best to use venv
.
In the last couple of years I have found many problems in build systems (emacs packages, python standalone application builders, installers...) that ultimately come down to issues with virtualenv
. I think python will be a better platform when we eliminate this additional option and only use venv
.
EDIT: Tweet of the BDFL,
I use venv (in the stdlib) and a bunch of shell aliases to quickly switch.— Guido van Rossum (@gvanrossum) October 22, 2020virtualenv is a very popular tool that creates isolated Python environments for Python libraries. If you're not familiar with this tool, I highly recommend learning it, as it is a very useful tool, and I'll be making comparisons to it for the rest of this answer.
It works by installing a bunch of files in a directory (eg: env/
), and then modifying the PATH
environment variable to prefix it with a custom bin
directory (eg: env/bin/
). An exact copy of the python
or python3
binary is placed in this directory, but Python is programmed to look for libraries relative to its path first, in the environment directory. It's not part of Python's standard library, but is officially blessed by the PyPA (Python Packaging Authority). Once activated, you can install packages in the virtual environment using pip
.
pyenv is used to isolate Python versions. For example, you may want to test your code against Python 2.7, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8, so you'll need a way to switch between them. Once activated, it prefixes the PATH
environment variable with ~/.pyenv/shims
, where there are special files matching the Python commands (python
, pip
). These are not copies of the Python-shipped commands; they are special scripts that decide on the fly which version of Python to run based on the PYENV_VERSION
environment variable, or the .python-version
file, or the ~/.pyenv/version
file. pyenv
also makes the process of downloading and installing multiple Python versions easier, using the command pyenv install
.
pyenv-virtualenv is a plugin for pyenv
by the same author as pyenv
, to allow you to use pyenv
and virtualenv
at the same time conveniently. However, if you're using Python 3.3 or later, pyenv-virtualenv
will try to run python -m venv
if it is available, instead of virtualenv
. You can use virtualenv
and pyenv
together without pyenv-virtualenv
, if you don't want the convenience features.
virtualenvwrapper is a set of extensions to virtualenv
(see docs). It gives you commands like mkvirtualenv
, lssitepackages
, and especially workon
for switching between different virtualenv
directories. This tool is especially useful if you want multiple virtualenv
directories.
pyenv-virtualenvwrapper is a plugin for pyenv
by the same author as pyenv
, to conveniently integrate virtualenvwrapper
into pyenv
.
pipenv aims to combine Pipfile
, pip
and virtualenv
into one command on the command-line. The virtualenv
directory typically gets placed in ~/.local/share/virtualenvs/XXX
, with XXX
being a hash of the path of the project directory. This is different from virtualenv
, where the directory is typically in the current working directory. pipenv
is meant to be used when developing Python applications (as opposed to libraries). There are alternatives to pipenv
, such as poetry
, which I won't list here since this question is only about the packages that are similarly named.
pyvenv
is a script shipped with Python 3 but deprecated in Python 3.6 as it had problems (not to mention the confusing name). In Python 3.6+, the exact equivalent is python3 -m venv
.
venv is a package shipped with Python 3, which you can run using python3 -m venv
(although for some reason some distros separate it out into a separate distro package, such as python3-venv
on Ubuntu/Debian). It serves the same purpose as virtualenv
, but only has a subset of its features (see a comparison here). virtualenv
continues to be more popular than venv
, especially since the former supports both Python 2 and 3.
This is my personal recommendation for beginners: start by learning virtualenv and pip, tools which work with both Python 2 and 3 and in a variety of situations, and pick up other tools once you start needing them.
Added below "Conclusion" paragraph
I've went down the pipenv
rabbit hole (it's a deep and dark hole indeed...) and since the last answer is over 2 years ago, felt it was useful to update the discussion with the latest developments on the Python virtual envelopes topic I've found.
This answer is NOT about continuing the raging debate about the merits of pipenv versus venv as envelope solutions- I make no endorsement of either. It's about PyPA endorsing conflicting standards and how future development of virtualenv promises to negate making an either/or choice between them at all. I focused on these two tools precisely because they are the anointed ones by PyPA.
As the OP notes, venv is a tool for virtualizing environments. NOT a third party solution, but native tool. PyPA endorses venv for creating VIRTUAL ENVELOPES: "Changed in version 3.5: The use of venv is now recommended for creating virtual environments".
pipenv- like venv - can be used to create virtual envelopes but additionally rolls-in package management and vulnerability checking functionality. Instead of using requirements.txt
, pipenv
delivers package management via Pipfile. As PyPA endorses pipenv for PACKAGE MANAGEMENT, that would seem to imply pipfile
is to supplant requirements.txt
.
HOWEVER: pipenv uses virtualenv as its tool for creating virtual envelopes, NOT venv which is endorsed by PyPA as the go-to tool for creating virtual envelopes.
So if settling on a virtual envelope solution wasn't difficult enough, we now have PyPA endorsing two different tools which use different virtual envelope solutions. The raging Github debate on venv vs virtualenv which highlights this conflict can be found here.
The Github debate referenced in above link has steered virtualenv development in the direction of accommodating venv in future releases:
prefer built-in venv: if the target python has venv we'll create the environment using that (and then perform subsequent operations on that to facilitate other guarantees we offer)
So it looks like there will be some future convergence between the two rival virtual envelope solutions, but as of now pipenv- which uses virtualenv
- varies materially from venv
.
Given the problems pipenv solves and the fact that PyPA has given its blessing, it appears to have a bright future. And if virtualenv delivers on its proposed development objectives, choosing a virtual envelope solution should no longer be a case of either pipenv OR venv.
An oft repeated criticism of Pipenv I saw when producing this analysis was that it was not actively maintained. Indeed, what's the point of using a solution whose future could be seen questionable due to lack of continuous development? After a dry spell of about 18 months, Pipenv is once again being actively developed. Indeed, large and material updates have since been released.
pipenv want combine all, in addition to previous it installs "requirements" (into the active virtual environment or create its own if none is active)
So maybe you will be happy with pipenv only.
But I use: pyenv + pyenv-virtualenvwrapper, + pipenv for installing requirements only.
In Debian:
apt install libffi-dev python3-virtualenv
install pyenv based on https://www.tecmint.com/pyenv-install-and-manage-multiple-python-versions-in-linux/, but..
..instead of pyenv-virtualenv install pyenv-virtualenvwrapper:
git clone https://github.com/pyenv/pyenv-virtualenvwrapper.git $(pyenv root)/plugins/pyenv-virtualenvwrapper
pyenv virtualenvwrapper
Then create virtual environments for your projects (workingdir must exist):
mkvirtualenv <venvname> -p python3.9 -a <workingdir>
and switch between projects:
workon <venvname>
Inside a project I have the file requirements.txt, without fixing the versions inside (if some version limitation is not neccessary). You have 2 possible tools to install them into the current virtual environment: pip-tools or pipenv. Lets say you will use pipenv:
pipenv install -r requirements.txt
this will create Pipfile and Pipfile.lock files, fixed versions are in the 2nd one. If you want reinstall somewhere exactly same versions then (Pipfile.lock must be present):
pipenv install
Remember that Pipfile.lock is related to some Python version and need to be recreated if you use a different one.
As you see I write requirements.txt. This has some problems: You must remove a removed package from Pipfile too. So writing Pipfile directly is probably better.
So you can see I use pipenv very poorly. Maybe if you will use it well, it can replace everything?