<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style>
</head>
<body><div>On Mon, Mar 12, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Alex Grönholm wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><p>The manylinux1 platform only supports x86-64 and x86-32 (i686)
architectures. A quote from PEP 513:<br></p><p><div>Because CentOS 5 is only available for x86_64 and i686
architectures,
these are the only architectures currently supported by the <span class="font" style="font-family:menlo,consolas,"courier new",monospace">manylinux1</span> policy.<br></div>
</p><p>If support is to be extended to other architectures, it requires
a new standard (which has recently been discussed on this ML).<br></p></blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>There was discussion nearly a year ago about adding a manylinux3 variant, based on CentOS 7, with ppc64le support:<br></div>
<div><a href="https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-March/030315.html">https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-March/030315.html</a><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>More recently, there was discussion of a manylinux variant based on CentOS 6 to provide a newer base without expanding the supported architectures:<br></div>
<div><a href="https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2018-January/031943.html">https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2018-January/031943.html</a><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The latter discussion largely got stuck on whether we should switch from numbered variants (manylinux2) to using dates in the name (manylinux2014). If we can reach an agreement on that point, I think we can probably move towards defining more manylinux variants.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thomas<br></div>
</body>
</html>