On 2 Feb 2016 10:45, "Matthias Klose" <d...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > On 30.01.2016 00:29, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I think this is ready for pronouncement now -- thanks to everyone for >> all their feedback over the last few weeks! > > > I don't think so. I am biased because I'm the maintainer for Python in Debian/Ubuntu. So I would like to have some feedback from maintainers of Python in other Linux distributions (Nick, no, you're not one of these).
The RHEL ABI maintainers raised very similar concerns (that's how I found out about the current status of libabigail), but they're in a similar position to you: Linux distros provide *much* stronger guarantees of ABI compatibility than this PEP even attempts to provide. Here's the key distinction though: not everything is a mission critical production server, and we know from cross-distro redistributors like Continuum Analytics & Enthought, as well as our own upstream experience with the extraordinarily informal ABIs for Windows and Mac OS X wheels that an underspecified approach like manylinux is likely to be good enough in practice. That puts the power in users' hands: * by default, most users will get to use developer provided builds, rather than having to build from source (bringing the Linux user experience up to parity with that for Windows and Mac OS X) * folks can still force the use of source builds if they prefer (e.g. to better optimise for their OS and hardware, or to change the threat profile for their open source project usage) * folks can still opt to use a third party build service if they prefer (whether that's a Linux distro or a cross platform redistributor) Cheers, Nick.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
