On Jul 23, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > >>> I'd be open to adding the >>> platform name to the tag, but I'd probably define it as part of the >>> implementation field, e.g. foo.cpython-linux2-32m.so. Or maybe >>> start with the platform name, e.g. foo.linux2-cpython-32m. This >>> isn't a strong preference though. >> >>I don't have a strong opionion, but placing the platform name at the >>start is probably better to be consistent with >>sysconfig.get_platform(). > >What about the architecture (i386, amd64)? With every increase in >length I start to get more concerned. We could encode the platform >and architecture, but that gets into cryptic territory. OTOH, would >you really co-install i386 and amd64 shared libraries on the same >machine? (hello NFS ;).
Thinking about this some more, I'd rather *not* include the platform or
architecture in the tag by default. They aren't really necessary to support
the instigating use case and will probably be fairly uncommon.
I'd be okay including a configure option to allow you to add whatever you want
after the implementation, version, and flags. E.g. something like:
./configure --with-abi-tag-extension=linux2
would lead to foo.cpython-32m-linux2.so, so not the nicer names we'd prefer
but probably good enough for your purposes.
Would that work for you?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
