On Aug 13, 2015 8:47 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida > <leoroch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 13 August 2015 at 11:07, Nate Coraor <n...@bx.psu.edu> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > >>> > [...] > >>> (2) the special hard-coded tag "centos5". (That's what everyone actually > >>> uses in practice, right?) > >> > >> > >> The idea here is that we should attempt to install centos5 wheels if more > >> specific wheels for the platform aren't available? > > > > > > Just my opinion, but although I'm +1 on Nate's efforts, I'm -1 on both the > > standard behavior for installation being the exact platform tag, and an > > automatic fallback to cento5. > > > > IMO, on Linux, the default should always be to opt in to the desired > > platform tags. > > > > We could make it so that the word `default` inside > > `binary-compatibility.cfg` means an exact match on the distro version, so > > that we could simplify the documentation. > > > > But I don't want to upgrade to pip and suddenly find myself installing > > binary wheels compiled by whomever for whatever platform I have no control > > with, even assuming the best of the package builders intentions. > > > > And I certainly don't want centos5 wheels accidentally installed on my > > ubuntu servers unless I very specifically asked for them. > > > > The tiny pain inflicted by telling users to add a one-line text file in a > > very well known location (or two lines, for the added centos5), so that they > > can get the benefit of binary wheels on linux, is very small compared to the > > pain of repeatable install scripts suddenly behaving differently and > > installing binary wheels in systems that were prepared to pay the price of > > source installs, including the setting of build environment variables that > > correctly tweaked their build process. > > I think there are two issues here: > > 1) You don't want centos5 wheels "accidentally" installed on an ubuntu > server: Fair enough, you're right; we should probably make the "this > wheel should work on pretty much any linux out there" tag be something > that distributors have to explicitly opt into (similar to how they > have to opt into creating universal wheels), rather than having it be > something you could get by just typing 'pip wheel foo' on the right > (wrong) machine. > > 2) You want it to be the case that if I type 'pip install foo' on a > Linux machine, and pip finds both an sdist and a wheel, where the > wheel is definitely compatible with the current system, then it should > still always prefer the sdist unless configured otherwise: Here I > disagree strongly. This is inconsistent with how things work on every > other platform, it's inconsistent with how pip is being used on Linux > right now with private wheelhouses, and the "tiny pain" of editing a > file in /etc is a huge barrier to new users, many of whom are > uncomfortable editing config files and may not have root access.
So, there would be a capability / osnamestr mapping, or just [...]? Because my libc headers are different. > > -- > Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
