On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:On Aug 12, 2015 13:57, "Nate Coraor" <nate@bx.psu.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I've implemented the wheel side of Nick's suggestion from very early in this thread to support a vendor-providable binary-compatibility.cfg.
>
> https://bitbucket.org/pypa/wheel/pull-request/54/
>
> If this is acceptable, I'll add support for it to the pip side. What else should be implemented at this stage to get the PR accepted?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?