Hello, if we have wheels for x86_64 and arm64 individually, I don't see an argument for keeping universal2 ones. x86_64 Macs will probably stay around for a while as Apple is quite good in keeping old hardware updated, and the laptops themselves are pretty solid.
Best Uwe On Thu, Oct 27, 2022, at 10:04 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Hello, > > Currently, for macOS we're publishing both arm64, x86_64 *and* > universal2 binary wheels (the latter contain both arm64 and x86_64 code > in a single binary). > > Here are some observations from me: > > * Producing universal2 wheels is more complex than producing > single-architecture wheels (we actually have to build for both > architectures separately, then merge the results); it's also one more > CI/packaging configuration to look after > > * x86-64 Macs are legacy and are gradually disappearing (especially for > high-performance applications where ARM Macs are massively faster) > > * Numpy publishes only architecture-specific wheels, while Pandas > publishes both architecture-specific and universal wheels > > * Size-wise, a universal wheel is not much smaller than the sum of > architecture-specific wheels (for example, 43.7 MB for > pyarrow-9.0.0-cp310-cp310, vs. 24.0 MB + 21.6 MB) > > Is there any reason why we should continue publishing universal wheels > for macOS? > > Regards > > Antoine.
