On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 03:02:57 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Many users (quite reasonably, if they're primarily Python developers) > have problems working through build failures when attempting to > install non-Python extensions from source. Such build failures are > usually models of clarity compared to diagnosing dynamic linking > failures.
However, installing a binary doesn't imply a potential longish building step, or the installation of many build dependencies. LLVM can take 20 minutes to compile on a modern quad-core x86. I've been told it takes several hours on a Cortex A8 platform... By comparison, the failure of loading a precompiled dynamic library is instantaneous. And I don't think build failures are understandable by many users. You need to be a seasoned C developer for that. > > (at Continuum we have started offering such a service, but it's > > "generic Linux": http://docs.binstar.org/build-config.html#BuildMatrix) > > Yes, Continuum avoided the distro ABI compatibility problem by > defining its own ABI. Not exactly. Some ABI problems - for example the glibc-related ones - are still here. Conda and binstar-build are still a best effort (on the GNU/Linux side, that is), not an ideal solution. > > Well, *allowing* distro tags in the platform tag is certainly ok. What > > I'm afraid of is if that's made mandatory. > > OK, that makes more sense. Yes, I agree we need to keep the ability to > say "this is a prebuilt, self-contained, binary wheel that should run > on any Linux system because it doesn't link to any system binaries". > Chalk it up as yet another reason that the specific proposal I started > the thread with wouldn't actually work :) Great! Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
