[Python-Dev] versioned .so files for Python 3.2

[Barry Warsaw]

On Jun 24, 2010, at 02:28 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

>On Jun 24, 2010, at 01:00 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>>2010/6/24 Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org>:
>>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>>
>>>>2010/6/24 Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org>:
>>>>> Please let me know what you think.  I'm happy to just commit this to the
>>>>> py3k branch if there are no objections <wink>.  I don't think a new PEP is
>>>>> in order, but an update to PEP 3147 might make sense.
>>>>
>>>>How will this interact with PEP 384 if that is implemented?
>>> I'm trying to come up with something that will work immediately while PEP 384
>>> is being adopted.
>>
>>But how will modules specify that they support multiple ABIs then?
>
>I didn't understand, so asked Benjamin for clarification in IRC.
>
><gutworth> barry: if python 3.3 will only load x.3.3.so, but x.3.2.so supports
>           the stable abi, will it load it?  [14:25]
><barry> gutworth: thanks, now i get it :)  [14:26]
><barry> gutworth: i think it should, but it wouldn't under my scheme.  let me
>        think about it

So, we could say that PEP 384 compliant extension modules would get written
without a version specifier.  IOW, we'd treat foo.so as using the ABI.  It
would then be up to the Python runtime to throw ImportErrors if in fact we
were loading a legacy, non-PEP 384 compliant extension.

-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100624/87c1061a/attachment.pgp>