[Distutils] RFC: Binary Distribution Format for distutils2/packaging

PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Mar 14 20:22:36 CET 2012


On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Chris Barker <chris.barker at noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> Universal binaries (i.e. more than one architecture in one binary)
> have never been properly supported by binary eggs/setuptools. I think
> it may be as simple as the naming convention -- the binary would be
> named according to the machine it was built on (i.e. PPC) but when you
> tried to install in on another machine, setuptools would look for one
> called, i.e. "x86" and not find it. There may be some other issues,
> too, but in any case,  we need to make sure the naming convention
> handles the multi-architecture case as well.
>

FWIW, all the setuptools platform compatibility code for Mac OS was
contributed by Bob Ippolito, and I don't remember his rationale for not
supporting fat binaries exactly, although at the time (almost a decade ago)
there were only two architectures and things in general were much simpler
then.  ;-)

If you settle on a naming convention that works, patches to the
pkg_resources functions 'compatible_platforms()', 'get_build_platform()',
and 'get_supported_platform()' are welcome.  These are the only parts of
setuptools that need to "understand" platform strings as anything other
than an opaque identifier.

(For that matter, if anybody comes up with a sane platform naming
convention for any *other* platforms, patches for those are welcome too!)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20120314/2bbf2a6d/attachment.html>


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list