[Distutils] Working toward Linux wheel support

[Wes Turner]

On Aug 13, 2015 8:31 PM, "Robert Collins" <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>
> On 14 August 2015 at 13:25, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Nate Coraor <nate at bx.psu.edu> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From my reading of what the Enthought and Continuum folks were saying
> >>> about how they are successfully distributing binaries across different
> >>> distributions, it sounds like the additional piece that would take
this from
> >>> a interesting experiment to basically-immediately-usable would be to
teach
> >>> pip that if no binary-compatibility.cfg is provided, then it should
assume
> >>> by default that the compatible systems whose wheels should be
installed are:
> >>> (1) the current system's exact tag,
> >>
> >> This should already be the case - the default tag will no longer be
> >> -linux_x86_64, it'd be linux_x86_64_distro_version.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> (2) the special hard-coded tag "centos5". (That's what everyone
actually
> >>> uses in practice, right?)
> >>
> >> The idea here is that we should attempt to install centos5 wheels if
more
> >> specific wheels for the platform aren't available?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Or more generally, we should pick some common baseline build
> > environment such that we're pretty sure wheels built there can run on
> > 99% of end-user systems and give this environment a name. (Doesn't
> > have to be "centos5", though IIUC CentOS 5 is what people are using
> > for this baseline build environment right now.) That way when distros
> > catch up and start providing binary-compatibility.cfg files, we can
> > give tell them that this is an environment that they should try to
> > support because it's what everyone is using, and to kick start that
> > process we should assume it as a default until the distros do catch
> > up. This has two benefits: it means that these wheels would actually
> > become useful in some reasonable amount of time, and as a bonus, it
> > would provide a clear incentive for those rare distros that *aren't*
> > compatible to document that by starting to provide a
> > binary-compatibility.cfg.
>
> Sounds like a reinvention of LSB, which is still a thing I think, but
> really didn't take the vendor world by storm.

LSB == "Linux System Base"

It really shouldn't be too difficult to add lsb_release to the major
distros and/or sys.plat*

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/book1.html

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/lsbrelease.html

>
> -Rob
>
> --
> Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20150813/ca976d61/attachment-0001.html>