[Distutils] PEP425 - Wheel Binary Package Compatibility

Daniel Holth dholth at gmail.com
Thu Oct 30 02:25:27 CET 2014

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2014 07:20, "Marcus Smith" <qwcode at gmail.com> wrote:
>> yes, I'm partial to a solution like this prior to wheel 2.0 (that I
>> imagine would support additional/custom tags)
> +1 for being able to add additional custom platform tags in the file naming
> convention from me as well. As Marcus noted earlier, even if you set up
> distro specific indexes currently, there's nothing built into the tooling to
> keep you from trying to install (e.g.) a Fedora 21 wheel on RHEL or CentOS 5
> (which is highly unlikely to work, given that the core ABIs in RHEL/CentOS 5
> are 7 or 8 years old at this point).
> We'd be highly unlikely to flip the switch from "experimental service, use
> at your own risk" to "fully supported Fedora feature" while that's still the
> case.
> With arbitrary platform tags, we could inject that into the wheel filenames
> as part of the build process, and then again when invoking pip.
> That opens things up for us to figure out how to best flag compatibility on
> the distro side, without committing to a specific approach upstream (not
> yet, anyway).
> An alternative approach would be to add an "additional wheel suffix" setting
> for pip that allowed us to have names with endings like ".fc21.whl" or
> ".el7.whl" recognised as valid wheel files.
> I'm not that worried about the exact details though - the main feature I'd
> like is the ability to create wheel files that pip will ignore by default,
> but will accept if I specifically tell it what to look for.
> Do we plan for this to be allowed to upload to PyPI proper? These custom
> tags?


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list