Re: [Distutils] Working toward Linux wheel support

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21 August 2015 at 05:58, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net>> wrote:> > On 21 August 2015 at 07:25, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote:> >>> >> On August 20, 2015 at 3:23:09 PM, Daniel Holth (dho...@gmail.com)> wrote:> >>> If you need that for some reason just put the longer information in the> >>> metadata, inside the WHEEL file for example. Surely "does it work on my> >>> system" dominates, as opposed to "I have a wheel with this mnemonic> tag,> >>> now let me install debian 5 so I can get it to run".> >>>> >>>> >>> >> It’s less about “now let me install Debian 5” and more like tooling> that doesn’t run *on* the platform but which needs to make decisions based> on what platform a wheel is built for.> >> > Cramming that into the file name is a mistake IMO.> >> > Make it declarative data, make it indexable, and index it. We can do> > that locally as much as via the REST API.> >> > That btw is why the draft for referencing external dependencies> > specifies file names (because file names give an ABI in the context of> > a platform) - but we do need to identify the platform, and> > platform.distribution should be good enough for that (or perhaps we> > start depending on lsb-release for detection>> LSB has too much stuff in it, so most distros aren't LSB compliant out> of the box - you have to install extra packages.>> /etc/os-release is a better option:> http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html


As per this discussion, and because I've discovered that the entire
platform module is deprecated in 3.5 (and other amusements, like a
Ubuntu-modified version of platform that ships on Ubuntu - platform as
shipped with CPython detects Ubuntu as debian), I'm switching to
os-release, but even that is unreliable - the file does not exist in
CentOS/RHEL 6, for example. On Debian testing/sid installs, VERSION and
VERSION_ID are unset (which is not wrong - there is no release of testing,
but it does make identifying the platform more complicated since even the
codename is not provided other than at the end of PRETTY_NAME). Regardless
of whether a hash or a human-identifiable string is used to identify the
platform, there still needs to be a way to reliably detect it.

Unless someone tells me not to, I'm going to default to using os-release
and then fall back to other methods in the event that os-release isn't
available, and this will be in some sort of library alongside pep425tags in
wheel/pip.

FWIW, os-release's `ID_LIKE` gives us some ability to make assumptions
without explicit need for a binary-compatibility.cfg (although not blindly
- for example, CentOS sets this to "rhel fedora", but of course RHEL/CentOS
and Fedora versions are not congruent).

--nate


>>> My original concern with using that was that it *over*specifies the> distro (e.g. not only do CentOS and RHEL releases show up as different> platforms, but so do X.Y releases within a series), but the> binary-compatibility.txt idea resolves that issue, since a derived> distro can explicitly identify itself as binary compatible with its> upstream and be able to use the corresponding wheel files.>> Regards,> Nick.>> --> Nick Coghlan   |   ncog...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia> _______________________________________________> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Dist...@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig>