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:
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.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncog...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Distutils-SIG maillist - Dist...@python.org