Re: [Distutils] Working toward Linux wheel support

On Aug 13, 2015 8:38 PM, "Wes Turner" <wes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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*

Salt grains implement this functionality w/ many OS:
https://github.com/saltstack/salt/blob/110cae3cdc1799bad37f81f2/salt/grains/core.py#L1229
("osname", "osrelease") [Apache 2.0]

>>
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