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? -Barry