On 21 February 2017 at 06:08, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally I try to avoid plans that require predicting the future years > in advance, but... It's kind of up to you? The name is not the most > important thing here :-). > > A possible problem though is that I'm pretty sure centos doesn't support > ppc. > It does, as of the more recent 7.x releases. Unfortunately, there's no ppc64le support in ci.centos.org at this point, though: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2017-January/015617.html The ppc64le Docker base image is also currently still third party rather than generated as one of the default artifacts: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2017-February/015661.html So until cloud-based ppc64le environments become more common as a target for running ppc64le containers, it may be necessary to pursue a Vagrant-based ppc64le build environment that uses a full machine image rather than a Docker image. Either way, I think the approach of defining an interim ppc64le specific target ABI, with a aim of converging back to the common manylinux baseline around the time of manylinux3 (aniticipated to be 2020'ish when RHEL 6 & CentOS 6 support ends) is likely to be the best available option. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________ Wheel-builders mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/wheel-builders
