[Python-Dev] PEP 0404 and VS 2010
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu Nov 21 23:53:37 CET 2013
On 22 Nov 2013 02:03, "Chris Barker - NOAA Federal" <chris.barker at noaa.gov>
>> with older releases (I admit I don't understand the ABI compatibility on
> Well, with OS-X, it's not exactly the C lic in the same way, but there
are different SDKs for different OS versions, and you can add to that PPC
vs Intel processors and 32 vs 64 bit.
> So we have for years had two builds for OS-X, and you can add to that
Macports, Homebrew, and what have you.
> And the idea that this isn't an issue for gcc makes no sense-- it's such
a big issue for Linux, in fact that python.org doesn't even try to build
binaries for Linux, and pypi has disabled binary wheels for Linux.
For 2.7.7, I think some combination of the two following ideas would be
- a C runtime independent API flag (set by default on Windows when building
with a compiler other than VS2008). This would largely be a backport of
some of the stable ABI work from Python 3.
- getting Windows closer to the current Mac OS X situation by ensuring that
the C runtime used directly affects the ABI flags and shared library names.
PyPI would apply the Mac OS X guideline where extensions are expected to be
compatible with the python.org binaries.
This would be the biggest change pushed through under the "make builds
work" policy for the extended 2.7 lifecycle, but Microsoft's aggressive
approach to deprecating old compilers and C runtimes means I think we don't
have much choice.
In the near term, if Stackless build to a different DLL name under VS2010
and make it clear to their users that extension compatibility issues are
possible (or even likely) if they aren't rebuilt from source, then I think
that would be compatible with the above proposal for a way forward.
Then we'd just need some volunteers to write and implement a PEP or two :)
(Note, similar to the Mac OS X situation, I think we should do this without
hosting any new interpreter variants on python.org - VS2010 and VS2013
source builds would become separate build-from-source ecosystems for
extensions, using sdists on PyPI as the default distribution mechanism)
>> So adding VS 2010 build files to the 2.7 tree would be fine with me,
> I think this part is a no brainer.
> I also think having a 2.8 out there that is exactly the same as 2.7,
except that it was built with a different version of a compiler on one
particular platform is a very very bad idea.
> So how CAN this be addressed? This is really a distribution issue, and
the distutils-sig has been hard at work building the infrastructure to
support things like this.
> Right now, if you build binary wheels with the two different "official"
OS-X builds, you will get two different names, and pop can find the correct
one. (last I checked, pip would happily install the wrong one if you asked
it to, though I think that is slated to be fixed)
> So if a different build of 2.7 for Windows is put out there, we need to
make sure it reports the platform in a way that wheel and pip can make the
> It might be nice to patch the win_inst too--IIRC it's still not very
smart about even 32 vs 64 bit builds.
> As for stackless--just to be clear--can you use extensions built with the
"regular" python with a stack less binary? If so, I understand the concern.
If not, then it seems stackless is a separate ecosystem anyway.
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev