On September 8, 2015 at 1:29:53 PM, Nate Coraor (n...@bx.psu.edu) wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > On September 3, 2015 at 1:23:03 PM, Nate Coraor (n...@bx.psu.edu) wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> I'll create PRs for this against wheel and pip shortly. I can also > > work > > > >>> on a PEP for the platform tag - I don't think it's going to need to > > be a > > > >>> big one. Are there any preferences as to whether this should be a > > new PEP > > > >>> or an update to 425? > > > >>> > > > > Coming back to this, I'm wondering if we should include the libc > > implementation/version in a less generic, but still generic linux wheel. > > Right > > now if you staticly link I think the only platform ABIs you need to worry > > about > > are libc and Python itself. Python itself is handled already but libc is > > not. > > The only thing I've seen so far is "build on an old enough version of glibc > > that it handles anything sane", but not all versions of Linux even use > > glibc at > > all. > > > This proposal makes a lot of sense to me. pip will need an update to do the > backwards compatibility, and it may be a little ugly to do this all on the > platform tag. For example, linux_x86_64_ubuntu_12_04 wheels should not be > installed on systems that identify as linux_x86_64_ubuntu_14_04, but > linux_x86_64_glibc_2_15 wheels can be installed on systems that identify as > linux_x86_64_glibc_2_19. pip would need to maintain a list of which tag > prefixes or patterns should be considered backward compatible, and which > should not. Granted, new libcs do not pop up overnight, so it's not exactly > a nightmare scenario. > > Wheel should be updated to generate the "libc-generic" wheels by default > when nothing other than libc is dynamically linked. It'll need libc > vendor/version detection. > > Alternatively, the platform tag could be split in two, in which case you > have a "generic" portion (which would probably be what it currently is, > distutils.util.get_platform()) and a "specific" portion (the distro or > libc), possibly prefixed with something to avoid having to maintain a list > of what's version compatible and what's not, (e.g. 'd_ubuntu_14_04' vs. > 'c_glibc_2_19')? > > I don't think there is a strong case to include the libc version in the > specific portion when a distro version will also be specified, because the > distro is supposed to define the ABI (at least in the case of distros with > stable ABIs), and that includes the libc compatibility. So for psycopg2 > wheels you'd get a "distro" wheel (linux_x86_64-d_ubuntu_14_04) but for > SQLAlchemy, you'd get a "libc-generic" wheel (linux_x86_64-c_glibc_2_19). > > It's then up to PyPI project owners to build on whatever platforms they > wish to support. >
I think it's reasonable to not include the libc when the wheel is distro specific. I think the barrier to entry on adding new tags is far lower than adding a whole new type of tag. Right now, I think our longest tag is for OSX which is something like macosx_10_10_x86_64 at 19 chars, I don't think it's much worse to have something like linux_glibc_2_19_x86_64 at 23 chars, or linux_ubuntu_14_04_x86_64 at 25 chars. I don't think we need the special c or d prefix, we can just treat it as ==, and special case glibc as >= like we're currently special casing the macosx wheels to be >=. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
