[Distutils] distutils.util.get_platform() for Windows

Mark Hammond mhammond at skippinet.com.au
Thu Jul 19 02:33:56 CEST 2007


Tres writes:

> Mark Hammond wrote:
> >> At 04:00 PM 7/18/2007 +1000, Mark Hammond wrote:
> >>> This will result in both the final version of most bdist_*
> >> installations
> >>> having the architecture in the filename.  It also has the
> >> nice side effect
> >>> of having the temp directories used by these commands include the
> >>> architecture in their names, meaning its possible to build
> >> multiple Windows
> >>> architectures from the same build tree, although that is not
> >> the primary
> >>> motivation.
> >> I presume the intention of this is to have it end up as either
> >> 'win32' or 'win64', yes?
> >
> > Probably 'win32', 'amd64' or 'itanium' - I'm not worried
> about the specific
> > strings, but there would need to be different ones for each
> of the 64bit
> > architectures.
>
> Why would you use processor type IDs to indicate Windows-specifc
> platforms?  Lots of systems running on AMD64 boxen don't run windows
> (can't say "lots" and "Itanium" in the same sentence, I guess, but I
> know for a fact that OpenVMS is running on Itanium, at least).

Yes, I agree with that.  I'm not too worried about what the specific strings
are, and I agree they should include the OS *and* the architecture (eg,
'win32', 'win-amdx64' or 'win-itanium' might be suitable, or maybe
win64-amd/win64-itanium).  However, I'm just trying to take things one step
at a time - if we can agree that having the same string for all
architectures is bad, we can then move forward into a "bike-shed" discussion
of what the new strings should be :)  I'm yet to hear anyone explicitly
agree with me that the current situation needs changing though.

Cheers,

Mark



More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list