fix: fix docker example and include pyproject.toml

[tdejager]

Fixes the docker example as pointed out by @pavelzw, will be a bit better when the #1092 is merged.
Also removes pixi.toml in favor for a single pyproject.toml

[pavelzw]

We could probably already do something like this:

[tool.pixi.feature.prod.pypi-dependencies]
docker-project = { path = ".", editable = false }

And remove the pip host-dependencies and the postinstall-production and build-wheel part.
Although I would still like a cleaner solution that doesn't suffer of #1046 and maybe #1088

[pavelzw]

Both envs need to be in the same solve-group, otherwise this example is a bit pointless.

[tdejager]

Yes. This posed a problem, so it was good we tested this. Made an issue for it here: #1123

[pavelzw]

What's the reasoning behind switching to flit?
Isn't flit old-school nowadays?

[tdejager]

Yeah, so I would rather use, hatch but currently because of PEP517 mismatch uv is currently not supporting the prepare_metadata_for_build_wheel. See: astral-sh/uv#2130. I'd rather not use setuptools cause it makes the .egg-info in the source and because of legacy reasons. Do you know of another good build backend?

[tdejager]

As long as: #1123 is not resolved, I cannot add the dependencies to the same solve-group. Not sure if you feel like merging it before thats fixed @pavelzw

[pavelzw]

Or we go back the postinstall-production route and maybe wait until we find a better solution to the general problem as mentioned in #1088 (comment)
We might have stretched the possibilities of uv / [pypi-dependencies] too far and should maybe think of other less-hacky solutions to fix this?

[tdejager]

Yeah, lets postpone that for now, I've reverted back to manual installation. Please check it out @pavelzw

[pavelzw]

Lgtm