On Jun 23, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
>> >> Would that mitigate the pain, assuming that >> Steve (or someone else) would be willing to build the additional >> installers for the transition period? I've done something similar on a >> smaller scale with the OS X 32-bit installer for 2.7.x but that impact >> is much less as the audience for that installer is much smaller. > > Well, the question really is whether precompiled extension modules > available from PyPI would work on both compilers. I understand that > for OSX, you typically don't have precompiled binaries for the extension > modules, so installation compiles the modules from scratch. This is > easier, as it can use the ABI of the Python which will be installed > to. > > If you go the "parallel ABIs" route, extension authors have to provide > two parallel sets of packages as well. Given 32-bit and 64-bit packages, > this will make actually two additional packages - just as if they had > to support another Python version. As far as I know, stuff on OSX is generally built for “X compiler or later” so binary compatibility is kept as long as you’re using an “or later” but I could be wrong about that. Using binary packages on OSX is a much less frequent thing I think though since getting a working compiler toolchain is easier there. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
