[Distutils] draft PEP: manylinux1

[Robert T. McGibbon]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>
> I guess my underlying question is, if we’re considering static linking (or
> shipping the .so dll style) to be good enough for everything not on this
> list, why are these specific packages on the list? Why are we not selecting
> the absolute bare minimum packages that you *cannot* reasonably static link
> or ship the .so?
>

This is a fair question. The principle, practical reason is that we
followed the lead of what other projects have done here for distributing
cross-distro binaries, especially Anaconda and Canopy.

I also just looked at the external libraries required by the portable
firefox Linux binaries (
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/43.0.4/system-requirements/). The
additional shared libraries that the firefox pre-compiled binaries require
that are not included in our list are

    libXcomposite.so.1
    libXdamage.so.1
    libXfixes.so.3
    libXt.so.6
    libasound.so.2
    libatk-1.0.so.0
    libcairo.so.2
    libdbus-1.so.3
    libdbus-glib-1.so.2
    libfontconfig.so.1
    libfreetype.so.6
    libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
    libgio-2.0.so.0
    libgmodule-2.0.so.0
    libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
    libpango-1.0.so.0
    libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
    libpangoft2-1.0.so.0


I would be open to including some of these libraries in the manylinux1
policy, or in a subsequent update (manylinux2, etc).

-Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20160121/b8027bdb/attachment-0001.html>