On Sep 8, 2015 1:33 PM, "Donald Stufft" <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > 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.
Could there be shim packages here? How is this a different dependency? > > > > 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
