yeah that's expected. The timing is complicated with people spread all over. We will post notes after the meeting on the SIG-Build mailing list and I'd also be up for organizing a separate call with europe folks if that would be of interest.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 19:29, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build <bu...@tensorflow.org> wrote: > > +Dmitri Gribenko > > Dmitri has experience with EasyBuild, which seems to be used by the HPC > community to solve the bootstrap problem and could be used to build a > toolchain image & pip package. > > Unfortunately we'll not be able to join the meeting as it's at midnight CEST > - looking forward to the conclusions from the meeting! > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:00 AM Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com> wrote: >> >> Hey all, >> >> We're having the TensorFlow SIG-Build meeting on 5th Feb 3pm PST >> (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190205T15&p1=224). >> Agenda is linked from: >> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/forum/#!topic/build/akyPcGoBIy4 >> >> I'd like to invite everyone from this thread to join the call if at >> all possible. The agenda for this meeting will spend most of the time >> focusing on the manylinux issue and hopefully we can get together to >> flesh out a decent plan on how to tackle this. >> >> Thanks, >> Jason >> >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 23:34, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build >> <bu...@tensorflow.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:21 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 30/01/2019 à 16:09, Manuel Klimek a écrit : >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org >> >> > <mailto:anto...@python.org>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Le 30/01/2019 à 15:35, Manuel Klimek a écrit : >> >> > > >> >> > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you actually proposing to >> >> > package another >> >> > > libstdc++ version as a Python wheel? >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > That would be the idea. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > If so, are you going to claim that the given wheel is >> >> > > manylinux-compatible? >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > That is my question :) Why wouldn't it be? (I'd link it against >> >> > > manylinux libc and other C-only system libs) >> >> > >> >> > The problem is when you are loading two modules that link against >> >> > different libstdc++ versions in the same process. Incidentally, >> >> > it's >> >> > the problem which prompted this discussion. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Sure, I'm aware :) I think as long as the requirement that all libraries >> >> > that want to exchange runtime-ABI-compatible versions are compiled with >> >> > the same toolchain, we can provide a way to mangle the symbols >> >> > differently. >> >> >> >> Ah, I see... Indeed, mangling the symbols may work for this. >> >> >> >> That said, if you're looking to create a de facto standard, why can't it >> >> be proposed as a manylinux iteration? >> > >> > >> > I'd have thought because it doesn't change the system requirements, while >> > manylinux seems to be all about system requirements. >> > The idea is that that toolchain would still work on any manylinux >> > compatible machine. >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Antoine. >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "SIG Build" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> > email to build+unsubscr...@tensorflow.org. >> > Visit this group at >> > https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "SIG Build" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to build+unsubscr...@tensorflow.org. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
