You’re skipping past the first solution they offer, which is the more efficient distroless solution. You can literally just copy the standalone uv binary directly into your image; you don’t need to base your entire image on theirs. COPY --from=ghcr.io/astral-sh/uv:0.9.2 /uv /bin/ This takes ~43MiB, not the 77MiB you cite. More on reddit.com

you can also just RUN pip install uv in the docker image to make things a bit simpler too. More on reddit.com

At this point there's little reason not to use uv. More on reddit.com

At first I tried the uv package manager which has a workspace feature, but it is not possible to have separate docker images (as far as I've understand it) because you have one single lock file. There's nothing about having a single lockfile that prevents you from having mulitple dockerfiles. let's pretend we have this: monorepo ├── subproject1 │ ├── file1.py │ ├── file2.py │ ├── Dockerfile │ └── pyproject.toml ├── subproject2 │ ├── file1.py │ ├── file2.py │ ├── Dockerfile │ └── pyproject.toml └── pyproject.toml └── uv.lock You can still build each dockerfile with the uv.lock file, you just need to execute the dockerfiles from the context of monorepo eg docker build -t exampletag -f ./subproject<1|2>/Dockerfile .. now the dockerfile will have access to the monorepo's uv.lock file as well as all the contents of every subfolder. You will need to path everything in the dockerfile as if it was in the parent folder though. That's the only downside to this. Alternatively you can copy the uv.lock into the subfolders as part of some sort of pipeline job. Another option is to use build contexts . though depending on the docker pipeline this may add additional unwanted complexity if you don't wanna do multi-stage pipelines There may be some nuances I'm missing since I don't use uv or work on a monorepo with python but that should be the gist of it More on reddit.com