On 11.03.2022 19:26, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 1:18 AM Marc-Andre Lemburg <email@example.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I think the list is missing some important platforms which we do support (looking at configure): * Linux on 32-bit ARM platforms, e.g. for Raspberry Pis * Linux on Android * AIX * Cygwin * NetBSD/OpenBSD * musl instead of glibc for Linux, e.g. for Alpine images
I went off of what we have stable buildbots for. If we want to either loosen the tier 3 requirement for a Buildbot or introduce a historical tier 4 we can. But, for instance, do any of us if AIX support actually works right now?
I've not built on AIX in a longer while, but the AIX Toolbox lists Python 3.9 as a package, so at least that version builds on AIX:
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/aix-toolbox-open-source-software-downloads... http://www.aixtools.net/index.php/python3 https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/tips-installing-python-or-other-aix-toolbo...
In general, I believe we should add a 4th tier for platforms supported by interested parties outside the core team. Those would be supported on a best effort basis by the parties and we'd point to the teams for support. Some of the above platforms would likely have to go into this tier.
My worry with that is having to try and keep that information up-to-date. Plus I would prefer to not have a PEP listing platforms where the status of the support is 🤷.
If people start to rely on PEP 11 for determining whether Python has support for a certain platform or not, I believe it's important to list such 3rd party efforts in the PEP as well. Otherwise, we'd be cutting off those efforts from being taken seriously and put off people who want to invest time into bringing Python to their platform.
My preference would be to not have PEP 11 limit support we add to the core for platforms which the core team does not support directly. It's fine to list platforms we actively support, but not to outrule adding support for platforms which are community supported.
Easiest would be to drop the line at the end of the proposed change.
It would also be nice to add a column to the table which shows the platforms for which binaries are built during the release and which are source only. At the moment, only Windows and macOS platforms have official binaries.
I was actually explicitly asked by someone who is part of doing releases *not* to list installers as they would prefer they not be viewed as required to exist.