On 14 August 2015 at 13:38, Wes Turner <wes.tur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2015 8:31 PM, "Robert Collins" <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: >> >> On 14 August 2015 at 13:25, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Nate Coraor <n...@bx.psu.edu> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> From my reading of what the Enthought and Continuum folks were saying >> >>> about how they are successfully distributing binaries across different >> >>> distributions, it sounds like the additional piece that would take >> >>> this from >> >>> a interesting experiment to basically-immediately-usable would be to >> >>> teach >> >>> pip that if no binary-compatibility.cfg is provided, then it should >> >>> assume >> >>> by default that the compatible systems whose wheels should be >> >>> installed are: >> >>> (1) the current system's exact tag, >> >> >> >> This should already be the case - the default tag will no longer be >> >> -linux_x86_64, it'd be linux_x86_64_distro_version. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> (2) the special hard-coded tag "centos5". (That's what everyone >> >>> actually >> >>> uses in practice, right?) >> >> >> >> The idea here is that we should attempt to install centos5 wheels if >> >> more >> >> specific wheels for the platform aren't available? >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> > Or more generally, we should pick some common baseline build >> > environment such that we're pretty sure wheels built there can run on >> > 99% of end-user systems and give this environment a name. (Doesn't >> > have to be "centos5", though IIUC CentOS 5 is what people are using >> > for this baseline build environment right now.) That way when distros >> > catch up and start providing binary-compatibility.cfg files, we can >> > give tell them that this is an environment that they should try to >> > support because it's what everyone is using, and to kick start that >> > process we should assume it as a default until the distros do catch >> > up. This has two benefits: it means that these wheels would actually >> > become useful in some reasonable amount of time, and as a bonus, it >> > would provide a clear incentive for those rare distros that *aren't* >> > compatible to document that by starting to provide a >> > binary-compatibility.cfg. >> >> Sounds like a reinvention of LSB, which is still a thing I think, but >> really didn't take the vendor world by storm. > > LSB == "Linux System Base" > > It really shouldn't be too difficult to add lsb_release to the major distros > and/or sys.plat* > > http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/book1.html > > http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/lsbrelease.html
So its already there; the point I was making was the LSB process and guarantees, not lsb_release, which is a tiny thing. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
