[Pythonmac-SIG] building universal binaries
kevino at theolliviers.com
Fri Jan 27 08:46:07 CET 2006
On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> Sorry, I wasn't really thinking about extensions. By Panther I did
>> mean building against the 10.3.9 SDK, which would give the desired
>> results for the Python binary itself, but as you said extending
>> that to correctly build extensions that did the same thing would
>> be a royal PITA.
> You still need to build against two different SDKs, which can't be
> done with just compiler flags. You have to do two separate
> compiles, and then lipo it together. At that point you might as
> well use different compilers and target older versions of OS X.
Yes, this was what I meant in my previous email about letting the SDK
get specified at configure time. I was thinking to have bash script
that automates the various steps. I guess you could put it into the
configure script, but that does sound to me to be pretty painful.
> The other thing is that Python's build probably detects a few
> things at runtime, and at runtime it's seeing 10.4, so it might not
> actually work on the target version of OS X.
Yeah, if this is the case it'd be a real mess. ;-/
> Ideally all that stuff would be pushed to runtime checks, so that
> it could choose a different code path based upon which APIs are
> available... but first you have to isolate the instances where that
>>> I think the only approach that doesn't require hacking a
>>> significant amount of Python's build process and distutils is to
>>> have two Python installations, one x86 only and one PPC only.
>>> For distribution, you would cook up some way to lipo it all
>> I can see how the issues with the strategy I outlined would be
>> significant, but I don't see how Universal support on Tiger would
>> be similarly difficult. Apple's Python 2.3.5 already is Universal,
>> and I'm unaware of any issues with it (except that it doesn't
>> build Universal extensions ;). The changes they made to the build
>> process seemed to be fairly minimal.
> Yeah, a 10.4+ universal build wouldn't be too big of a deal because
> you can do that with one invocation of GCC and one set of flags.
>> As far as distutils/working with extensions, I admit I'm not very
>> familiar with that. I did notice when compiling wxPython though
>> that there weren't any distutils flags passed to gcc that would
>> conflict with the building of Universal binaries. The main
>> question in my mind would be whether or not the built Universal
>> extension libraries could be loaded by Python's dynamic library
>> loader. If they can be loaded, and we could add the flags to
>> distutils' default compiler/linker flags, what other major issues
>> would need to be overcome?
> Some extensions aren't going to build cleanly universal, and most
> users probably aren't going to have all the SDKs installed so if it
> shipped with universal flags then it wouldn't be able to build
Unless we had distutils check for the existence of the Universal SDK
before setting the flags, or probably more accurately, remove them if
the SDK isn't available. Then perhaps add a distutils 'flag' to
manually turn off Universal building for extensions that can't be
fixed. This might be a bit of a hack, but I don't imagine it would be
too painful. The question is how many extensions would have
troubles... But I guess the only way we'll know is to test the
waters. In any case, even if it wouldn't be reasonable to make a
Universal build the "official" build, it would be very useful to
people packaging apps, even if it were Tiger+ only.
As far as the SDK dependency issue, IMHO, not everyone would need to
build Universal - the key would be for distributors/packages to make
Universal binaries, and I think it would be reasonable for us to tell
them "have the 10.4u SDK and DevTools installed". (And maybe the
Panther/Jaguar SDK assuming we could sort the issues you mentioned
above out...) Again, assuming a Universal build does make a sensible
More information about the Pythonmac-SIG