On 14 August 2015 at 14:14, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: ...> > Of course if you have an alternative proposal than I'm all ears :-).
Yeah :) So, I want to dedicate some time to contributing to this discussion meaningfully, but I can't for the next few weeks - Jury duty, Kiwi PyCon and polishing up the PEP's I'm already committed to... I think the approach of being able to ask the *platform* for things needed to build-or-use known artifacts is going to enable a bunch of different answers in this space. I'm much more enthusiastic about that than doing anything that ends up putting PyPI in competition with the distribution space. My criteria for success are: - there's *a* migration path from what we have today to what we propose. Doesn't have to be good, just exist. - authors of scipy, numpy, cryptography etc can upload binary wheels for *linux, Mac OSX and Windows 32/64 in a safe and sane way - we don't need to do things like uploading wheels containing non-Python shared libraries, nor upload statically linked modules In fact, I think uploading regular .so files is just a huge heartache waiting to happen, so I'm almost inclined to add: - we don't support uploading external non-Python libraries [ without prejuidice for changing our minds in the future] There was a post that referenced a numpy ABI, dunno if it was in this thread - I need to drill down into that, because I don't understand why thats not a regular version resolution problem,unlike the Python ABI, which pip can't install [and shouldn't be able to!] -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
