On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:52 AM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> On Aug 12, 2015 13:57, "Nate Coraor" <n...@bx.psu.edu> wrote: >> > >> > Hello all, >> > >> > I've implemented the wheel side of Nick's suggestion from very early in >> > this thread to support a vendor-providable binary-compatibility.cfg. >> > >> > https://bitbucket.org/pypa/wheel/pull-request/54/ >> > >> > If this is acceptable, I'll add support for it to the pip side. What >> > else should be implemented at this stage to get the PR accepted? >> >> From my reading of what the Enthought and Continuum folks were saying >> about how they are successfully distributing binaries across different >> distributions, it sounds like the additional piece that would take this from >> a interesting experiment to basically-immediately-usable would be to teach >> pip that if no binary-compatibility.cfg is provided, then it should assume >> by default that the compatible systems whose wheels should be installed are: >> (1) the current system's exact tag, (2) the special hard-coded tag >> "centos5". (That's what everyone actually uses in practice, right?) >> >> To make this *really* slick, it would be cool if, say, David C. could make >> a formal list of exactly which system libraries are important to depend on >> (xlib, etc.), and we could hard-code two compatibility profiles >> "centos5-minimal" (= just glibc and the C++ runtime) and "centos5" (= that >> plus the core too-hard-to-ship libraries), and possibly teach pip how to >> check whether that hard-coded core set is available. > > > So this is a basic list I got w/ a few minutes of scripting, by installing > our 200 most used packages on centos 5, ldd'ing all of the .so, and > filtering out a few things/bugs of some of our own packages): > > /usr/lib64/libatk-1.0.so.0 > /usr/lib64/libcairo.so.2 > /usr/lib64/libdrm.so.2 > /usr/lib64/libfontconfig.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libGL.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libGLU.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 > /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6 > /usr/lib64/libXau.so.6 > /usr/lib64/libXcursor.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libXdmcp.so.6 > /usr/lib64/libXext.so.6 > /usr/lib64/libXfixes.so.3 > /usr/lib64/libXft.so.2 > /usr/lib64/libXinerama.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libXi.so.6 > /usr/lib64/libXrandr.so.2 > /usr/lib64/libXrender.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libXt.so.6 > /usr/lib64/libXv.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libXxf86vm.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libz.so.1 > > This list should only be taken as a first idea, I can work on a more precise > list including the versions if that's deemed useful.
Cool. Here's a list of the external .so's assumed by the packages currently included in a default Anaconda install: https://gist.github.com/njsmith/6c3d3f2dbaaf526a8585 The lists look fairly similar overall -- glibc, libstdc++, Xlib. They additionally assume the availability of expat, glib, ncurses, pcre, maybe some other stuff I missed, but they ship their own versions of libz and fontconfig, and they don't seem to either ship or use cairo or atk in their default install. For defining a "standard platform", just taking the union seems reasonable -- if either project has gotten away this long with assuming some library is there, then it's probably there. Writing a little script that takes a wheel and checks whether it has any external dependencies outside of these lists, or takes a system and checks whether all these libraries are available, seems like it would be pretty trivial. > One significant issue is SSL: in theory, we (as a downstream distributor) > really want to avoid distributing such a key piece of infrastructure, but in > practice, there are so many versions which are incompatible across > distributions that it is not an option. This is mostly an issue for distributing Python itself, right? ...I hope? -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
