On 13 Jan, 2010, at 23:44, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Ronald Oussoren wrote: >> >> On 13 Jan, 2010, at 18:41, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> >>> Ronald Oussoren wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2010, at 04:15PM, "M.-A. Lemburg" >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 2) On OS X, the modification to the value returned by >>>>>> pkg_resources.get_platform() isn't correct for fat version of Python >>>>>> 2.5, as detailed in setuptools issue 19. To solve that, we're using the >>>>>> patch I submitted to the issue (with a couple recent changes). >>>>> >>>>> I think that using "fat" in the version string is wrong for >>>>> Mac OS X, since there are many ways to build fat binaries. >>>>> >>>>> Instead, the version string should include the details of >>>>> all included builds, ie. 'x86', 'x64', 'ppc', 'ppc64'. >>>> >>>> Maybe in the long run, but for now "fat" has a well-defined meaning for >>>> distutils: fat == ppc + x86_64. There is also a number of other variants, >>>> as described in the documentation for distutils. >>> >>> I think you meant: fat == ppc + i386. >> >> Thats right. >>> >>> However, it's also possible to build binaries with ppc, i386 and >>> x86_64 - as are shipped with Mac OS X 10.6, so "fat" is not really >>> well-defined and could lead to trying to install 32-bit software for >>> a 64-bit build of Python. >> >> "fat" is well-defined for distutils, see the definition of get_platform at >> <http://docs.python.org/distutils/apiref.html>. >> >> For distutils "fat" is always a universal binary with architectures i386 and >> ppc, with alternate names for other variants. > > Thanks for pointing that out, however, I don't think that creating > aliases for combinations of various different architectures > is a good idea. > > It's better to make the included architectures explicit and use > this logic for all platforms, not just Mac OS X.
I would probably have done that, knowing what I know now. Hashing out the details on what combinations of architectures are valid during installation will be fun though ;-). That is, if my python says its machine is "i386,x86_64" is it then acceptable to install an "i386" binary, an "i386,x86_64" binary, and "i386,ppc, x86_64" binary? Ronald
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
