For what it's worth, setting it to 1 as opposed to 0 will make the package incompatible with CentOS / RHEL 7 as the glibc they ship does not support the new ABI.
-Keith On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:53 AM Philipp Moritz <pcmor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah ok, that makes sense! I'm also not even sure if > _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0 was ever mandated on manylinux1, it might > just be a community convention. > > I posted > > https://discuss.python.org/t/how-to-set-glibcxx-use-cxx11-abi-for-manylinux2014-and-manylinux2010-wheels/10551 > , > we can shift the discussion there. > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 1:45 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > Le 10/09/2021 à 10:05, Philipp Moritz a écrit : > > > Thanks for your answer Antoine! > > > > > > Considering your first comment, there is a section in > > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0571 under "Backwards > compatibility > > > with manylinux1 wheels" that states > > > "manylinux1 wheels are considered manylinux2010 wheels" and the same > > remark > > > in https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0599/ for manylinux2014 about > > > compatibility with both manylinux2010 and manylinux1. > > > > As far as I understand, this sentence is talking about system > > compatibility: if you can use manylinux2010 wheels on a system, you can > > also use manylinux1 wheels. That doesn't necessarily mean a manylinux1 > > wheel will nicely interoperate with a manylinux2010 wheel that would > > expose the same symbols. > > > > It seems wheel-to-wheel interoperability is a grey area of the manylinux > > specs. To their credit, though, the issues with C++ symbol / ABI > > conflicts are pretty abstruse and almost impossible to predict. > > > > Regards > > > > Antoine. > > >
