Re: [Distutils] Working toward Linux wheel support

On Aug 13, 2015 8:31 PM, "Robert Collins" <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote:
>> On 14 August 2015 at 13:25, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Nate Coraor <n...@bx.psu.edu> wrote:> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:> >>>> >>> From my reading of what the Enthought and Continuum folks were saying> >>> about how they are successfully distributing binaries across different> >>> distributions, it sounds like the additional piece that would take
this from
> >>> a interesting experiment to basically-immediately-usable would be to
teach
> >>> pip that if no binary-compatibility.cfg is provided, then it should
assume
> >>> by default that the compatible systems whose wheels should be
installed are:
> >>> (1) the current system's exact tag,> >>> >> This should already be the case - the default tag will no longer be> >> -linux_x86_64, it'd be linux_x86_64_distro_version.> >>> >>>> >>> (2) the special hard-coded tag "centos5". (That's what everyone
actually
> >>> uses in practice, right?)> >>> >> The idea here is that we should attempt to install centos5 wheels if
more
> >> specific wheels for the platform aren't available?> >> > Yes.> >> > Or more generally, we should pick some common baseline build> > environment such that we're pretty sure wheels built there can run on> > 99% of end-user systems and give this environment a name. (Doesn't> > have to be "centos5", though IIUC CentOS 5 is what people are using> > for this baseline build environment right now.) That way when distros> > catch up and start providing binary-compatibility.cfg files, we can> > give tell them that this is an environment that they should try to> > support because it's what everyone is using, and to kick start that> > process we should assume it as a default until the distros do catch> > up. This has two benefits: it means that these wheels would actually> > become useful in some reasonable amount of time, and as a bonus, it> > would provide a clear incentive for those rare distros that *aren't*> > compatible to document that by starting to provide a> > binary-compatibility.cfg.>> Sounds like a reinvention of LSB, which is still a thing I think, but> really didn't take the vendor world by storm.

LSB == "Linux System Base"

It really shouldn't be too difficult to add lsb_release to the major
distros and/or sys.plat*

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/book1.html

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/lsbrelease.html

>> -Rob>> --> Robert Collins <rbtc...@hp.com>> Distinguished Technologist> HP Converged Cloud> _______________________________________________> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Dist...@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig