On 23 Jul, 2010, at 23:19, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 23, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
I'd be open to adding the platform name to the tag, but I'd probably define it as part of the implementation field, e.g. foo.cpython-linux2-32m.so. Or maybe start with the platform name, e.g. foo.linux2-cpython-32m. This isn't a strong preference though.
I don't have a strong opionion, but placing the platform name at the start is probably better to be consistent with sysconfig.get_platform().
What about the architecture (i386, amd64)? With every increase in length I start to get more concerned. We could encode the platform and architecture, but that gets into cryptic territory. OTOH, would you really co-install i386 and amd64 shared libraries on the same machine? (hello NFS ;).
Thinking about this some more, I'd rather *not* include the platform or architecture in the tag by default. They aren't really necessary to support the instigating use case and will probably be fairly uncommon.
I'd be okay including a configure option to allow you to add whatever you want after the implementation, version, and flags. E.g. something like:
./configure --with-abi-tag-extension=linux2
would lead to foo.cpython-32m-linux2.so, so not the nicer names we'd prefer but probably good enough for your purposes.
Would that work for you?
That would certainly work. That said, I'm also fine with not adding the platform information or configure argument at all. My usecase is fairly exotic and I do have a feasible workaround. Ronald