On Jun 23, 2014, at 5:48 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:42 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> See my other message. It's actually heavier, since it requires changes >> to distutils, PyPI, pip, buildout etc., all which know how to deal with >> Python minor version numbers, but are unaware of the notion of competing >> ABIs on Windows (except that they know how to deal with 32-bit vs. 64-bit). > > Is it possible to hijack the "deal with 32-bit vs 64-bit"ness of > things to handle the different compilers? So, for instance, there > might be a "32-bit-NewCompiler" and a "64-bit-NewCompiler", two new > architectures, just as if someone came out with a 128-bit Windows and > built Python 2.7 for it. Would packaging be able to handle that more > easily than a compiler change within the same architecture? > > ChrisA > _______________________________________________ > 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/donald%40stufft.io I’m not sure about this FWIW. I’d have to look at the implementations of stuff to see how they’d cope with a new thing like that. ----------------- 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
