>>>>> "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.