On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > > Universal binaries (i.e. more than one architecture in one binary) > have never been properly supported by binary eggs/setuptools. I think > it may be as simple as the naming convention -- the binary would be > named according to the machine it was built on (i.e. PPC) but when you > tried to install in on another machine, setuptools would look for one > called, i.e. "x86" and not find it. There may be some other issues, > too, but in any case, we need to make sure the naming convention > handles the multi-architecture case as well. >
FWIW, all the setuptools platform compatibility code for Mac OS was contributed by Bob Ippolito, and I don't remember his rationale for not supporting fat binaries exactly, although at the time (almost a decade ago) there were only two architectures and things in general were much simpler then. ;-) If you settle on a naming convention that works, patches to the pkg_resources functions 'compatible_platforms()', 'get_build_platform()', and 'get_supported_platform()' are welcome. These are the only parts of setuptools that need to "understand" platform strings as anything other than an opaque identifier. (For that matter, if anybody comes up with a sane platform naming convention for any *other* platforms, patches for those are welcome too!)
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
