On 14 January 2016 at 15:55, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Just wanted give distutils-sig a heads-up that there seems to be some > momentum gathering around a plot to bring linux wheels to pypi: > > https://github.com/manylinux/manylinux > > Basically the idea is to define a standard baseline linux environment > (available libraries + version numbers + ABI of these), give it a name > (for now, "manylinux"), and then provide tools to build wheels against > this environment, teach pip how to recognize that the system it's on > conforms to the environment, and then convince pypi to start accepting > wheels with this as a platform tag :-). And if we carefully define the > baseline environment based on the experiences of the popular > scientific python distros (Continuum's Anaconda + Enthought's Canopy) > we can be highly confident that essentially all desktop + server linux > distros will be compatible with these wheels.
Very nice! > This strategy is orthogonal to the more ambitious efforts to define an > interface between wheels and the platform package manager; they can > proceed in parallel and potentially complement each other. The goal > here is just to get linux up to feature parity with windows and osx. That sounds like a good strategy to me - improved automation of upstream -> downstream package conversions is a nice feature to have, but it's a redistributor oriented one, moreso than an end user focused one. For end users, a pragmatic approach to defining a baseline "manylinux" ABI based on the experience of cross-distro redistributors will provide more benefit, sooner. > Status: > - we have a draft policy > - there's a cool tool for scanning wheels and checking whether they > conform to the policy: https://github.com/manylinux/auditwheel > - there's a draft docker image to make it easy to build such wheels > (https://github.com/manylinux/manylinux/pull/2) > > To do: > - bikeshed the name ("manylinux" was picked after about 2 minutes of > discussion so as to get started. maybe "genericlinux" would be better? > I dunno.) Since you've already set up the GitHub group etc as "manylinux", I think it makes sense to just call it "good enough". "manylinux" is an accurate description (as *many* Linux distributions provide the ABI subset you're targeting, but not all of them), and "genericlinux" has potential to cause confusion with "linux-generic" kernel packages. > - build some test wheels > - write a proper PEP > - convince pip and pypi maintainers that this is a good idea ;-) While I've historically advocated against the idea of defining our own "Linux platform ABI" subset, the fact that Enthought and Continuum are successfully distributing pre-built binaries through the simple "use CentOS 5.11" approach seems promising. In terms of non-scientific packages, the main group I'd suggest getting in touch with is pycryptography, as we'll probably want to baseline a more recent version of OpenSSL than the one in CentOS 5.11. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
