On 1/14/2016 06:13, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 January 2016 at 20:12, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 January 2016 at 15:55, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
- 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.
Ah, looking at https://github.com/manylinux/auditwheel, I see anything
linking to OpenSSL would fail the platform audit, at least for the
current draft policy. That also seems like a potentially reasonable
approach (although it could lead to complaints about "Why doesn't
project <X> offer a wheel file?")
Yeah, it's very unfortunate, that's exactly the library that you'd
like to be able to depend on, so we checked specifically. But it turns
out that openssl has broken ABI over the relevant time-period, so
there's no choice, you can't rely on the system version and have to
statically link :-(.
Though I guess this is no worse than than if you want to distribute a
wheel that needs openssl on Windows.
-n
Theoretically you can statically link openssl on windows, or otherwise
include it. An odd benefit (in this case, only) of an operating system
that includes nothing is a culture of vendoring everything.
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
