Re: [Distutils] Working toward Linux wheel support

On Sep 8, 2015 1:33 PM, "Donald Stufft" <don...@stufft.io> wrote:
>> On September 8, 2015 at 1:29:53 PM, Nate Coraor (n...@bx.psu.edu) wrote:> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:> >> > > On September 3, 2015 at 1:23:03 PM, Nate Coraor (n...@bx.psu.edu)
wrote:
> > > > >>>> > > > >>> I'll create PRs for this against wheel and pip shortly. I can
also
> > > work> > > > >>> on a PEP for the platform tag - I don't think it's going to
need to
> > > be a> > > > >>> big one. Are there any preferences as to whether this should be
a
> > > new PEP> > > > >>> or an update to 425?> > > > >>>> > >> > > Coming back to this, I'm wondering if we should include the libc> > > implementation/version in a less generic, but still generic linux
wheel.
> > > Right> > > now if you staticly link I think the only platform ABIs you need to
worry
> > > about> > > are libc and Python itself. Python itself is handled already but libc
is
> > > not.> >> > The only thing I've seen so far is "build on an old enough version of
glibc
> > > that it handles anything sane", but not all versions of Linux even use> > > glibc at> > > all.> >> >> > This proposal makes a lot of sense to me. pip will need an update to do
the
> > backwards compatibility, and it may be a little ugly to do this all on
the
> > platform tag. For example, linux_x86_64_ubuntu_12_04 wheels should not
be
> > installed on systems that identify as linux_x86_64_ubuntu_14_04, but> > linux_x86_64_glibc_2_15 wheels can be installed on systems that
identify as
> > linux_x86_64_glibc_2_19. pip would need to maintain a list of which tag> > prefixes or patterns should be considered backward compatible, and which> > should not. Granted, new libcs do not pop up overnight, so it's not
exactly
> > a nightmare scenario.

Could there be shim packages here?
How is this a different dependency?

> >> > Wheel should be updated to generate the "libc-generic" wheels by default> > when nothing other than libc is dynamically linked. It'll need libc> > vendor/version detection.> >> > Alternatively, the platform tag could be split in two, in which case you> > have a "generic" portion (which would probably be what it currently is,> > distutils.util.get_platform()) and a "specific" portion (the distro or> > libc), possibly prefixed with something to avoid having to maintain a
list
> > of what's version compatible and what's not, (e.g. 'd_ubuntu_14_04' vs.> > 'c_glibc_2_19')?> >> > I don't think there is a strong case to include the libc version in the> > specific portion when a distro version will also be specified, because
the
> > distro is supposed to define the ABI (at least in the case of distros
with
> > stable ABIs), and that includes the libc compatibility. So for psycopg2> > wheels you'd get a "distro" wheel (linux_x86_64-d_ubuntu_14_04) but for> > SQLAlchemy, you'd get a "libc-generic" wheel
(linux_x86_64-c_glibc_2_19).
> >> > It's then up to PyPI project owners to build on whatever platforms they> > wish to support.> >>> I think it's reasonable to not include the libc when the wheel is distro> specific. I think the barrier to entry on adding new tags is far lower
than
> adding a whole new type of tag. Right now, I think our longest tag is for
OSX
> which is something like macosx_10_10_x86_64 at 19 chars, I don't think
it's
> much worse to have something like linux_glibc_2_19_x86_64 at 23 chars, or> linux_ubuntu_14_04_x86_64 at 25 chars. I don't think we need the special
c or
> d prefix, we can just treat it as ==, and special case glibc as >= like
we're
> currently special casing the macosx wheels to be >=.>> -----------------> Donald Stufft> PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372
DCFA
>>