"Martin" == Martin v Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> writes:
Martin> skip@pobox.com schrieb: >> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible, >> >> and should be attempted. What do you think? >> Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI for 2.5 since Neal> it's already released and our policy is to keep it constant. >> >> It seems that adhering to LSB's constraints is going to create a new set of >> problems for Python development. It's unclear to me what LSB brings to >> Python other than a bunch of new headaches. Martin> I won't try to defend it, but would suggest that an evaluation Martin> is deferred until it is clear what the actual problems are, and Martin> then to judge whether they are additional problems (or perhaps Martin> just a tightening of procedures which we had been following all Martin> along). Taking one example from this thread, Python's bytecode has always been an internal implementation detail. If I read the thread correctly there is at least a request (if not a requirement) to make it part of an external ABI if Python is to become part of the ABI. That may or may not be a large technical challenge, but I think it would be a significant philosophical change. Martin> In any case, having Python in the LSB means that ISVs (software Martin> vendors) who target LSB (rather than targetting specific Linux Martin> distributions) could develop their applications also in Python Martin> (whereas now they have to use C or C++). Why? Lots of people write portable Python programs today. Skip