On 23 Aug, 2013, at 0:52, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 23:08, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> I want to give it a shot for OS-X -- no one seems to want to maintian
> bdist_mpkg, and it's time to move forward...
>
> My impression is that the architecture and "fat binary" stuff on OSX is the
> bit that may bite you. I know little or nothing about OSX, but I'm sure if
> you try and report on how you get on, the people on the list will be able to
> help you get things sorted and we will be able to get any dark corners ironed
> out.
I don't really expect problems on OSX, I've used binary eggs in the past and
those work just fine. Wheels seem to be simular enough to eggs to not expect
problems there either.
The one thing that might be problematic later on is that distutils (and hence
setuptools and eggs) uses labels for sets of architectures in fat binaries,
while wheels can describe those directly. That is, distutils uses "intel" as
the architecture string for the set {i386, x86_64}, while wheel can use
something like "darwin_i386.darwin_x86_64" (through PEP 425, the actual value
may be different as this is based on a light rereading of the pep). That is an
optional difference and can be ignored for now.
Note that fat binaries are not at all problematic from the point of view of
installing a wheel, a fat binary is a single file that happens to work on
multiple CPU archectures. Creating a structure that would allow for wheels
that support both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows is harder because you'd have two
.pyd files that obviously cannot have the same path in the filesystem or wheel
archive (but easily solved by another level of indirection, such as ".pyext"
directory that can contain extension files whose name is the result of
distutils.util.get_platform()).
Ronald
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
