[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Georg Brandl added the comment: Windows isn't relevant here, but for the others, extension-suffix sounds much better. Added in r84747. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Matthias Klose added the comment: --extension-suffix ? doesn't use the `so', which you don't see on MacOs, HpUX and Windows. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Georg Brandl added the comment: It is available via sysconfig, so that would not be a problem. Patch is attached; I'm not sure if the option name --so is the best one though. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file18856/pc-so.diff ___ Python trac

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Matthias Klose added the comment: however we should expose the name of the SOABI string/extension in python-config, so that people can build with this name if they want to. -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: I agree with msg115992. People do use make to build extension modules, with hard-coded file names in the make targets. -- ___ Python tracker _

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Changes by Éric Araujo : -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pytho

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: s/3179/3149/ :) The point about building w/o distutils is a good one and touches on my concerns in my comment above. It would be nice to know whether there's any measurable practical benefit to the change, i.e. measure startup time for an application tha

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Benjamin Peterson added the comment: Indeed, PEP 3179 is only supposed to add support for people who wish to version their modules. -- resolution: -> rejected status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Georg Brandl added the comment: Martin might be able to provide some insight from when (IIRC) Windows dynamic DLLs were restricted to .pyd extension only. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Georg Brandl added the comment: I'm not in favor of this change. PEP 3179 was accepted because it presented an optional additional feature that doesn't break compatibility. For example, build tools of third-party external modules that do not use distutils would break. -- nosy: +benj

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: I guess I'm concerned about any compatibility issues e.g. an extension built for 3.1 trying to load into 3.2. But that'll probably fail anyway. So I guess it's impossible to build a bare .so extension for Python 3.2. -- ___

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

Changes by Matthias Klose : -- stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://ma

[issue9806] no need to try loading posix extensions without SOABI

New submission from Matthias Klose : the SOABI is always defined, no need to try loading an extension without the SOABI in its name. ok to commit? -- components: Interpreter Core files: dynload.diff keywords: patch messages: 115922 nosy: barry, doko priority: normal severity: normal st