On 7 July 2015 at 07:46, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 22:34:38 +0100 > Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6 July 2015 at 19:18, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> > What if packagers take care of working around the issue? >> > (for example by building on a suitably old Linux platform, as we >> > already do for Conda packages) >> >> At the moment it's just a simple "if the wheel is for Linux, reject it" test. >> >> As to whether that's too conservative, one of the Linux guys would >> need to comment. Maybe the issue is simply that we can't be sure >> people will take the care that you do, and the risk of people getting >> broken installs is too high? > > Then how about a warning, or a rejection by default with a well-known > way to bypass it?
Unfortunately, the compatibility tagging for Linux wheels is currently so thoroughly inadequate that even in tightly controlled environments having a wheel file escape from its "intended" target platforms can cause hard to debug problems. There was a good proposal not that long ago to add a "platform tag override" capability to both pip (for installation) and bdist_wheel (for publication), but I don't know what became of that. If we had that system, then I think it would be reasonable to allow Linux uploads with a "pypi_linux_x86_64" override tag - they'd never be installed by default, but folks could opt in to allowing them. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
