On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Nate Coraor <n...@bx.psu.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 21 August 2015 at 05:58, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> >> wrote: >> > On 21 August 2015 at 07:25, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> >> >> >> On August 20, 2015 at 3:23:09 PM, Daniel Holth (dho...@gmail.com) >> wrote: >> >>> If you need that for some reason just put the longer information in >> the >> >>> metadata, inside the WHEEL file for example. Surely "does it work on >> my >> >>> system" dominates, as opposed to "I have a wheel with this mnemonic >> tag, >> >>> now let me install debian 5 so I can get it to run". >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> It’s less about “now let me install Debian 5” and more like tooling >> that doesn’t run *on* the platform but which needs to make decisions based >> on what platform a wheel is built for. >> > >> > Cramming that into the file name is a mistake IMO. >> > >> > Make it declarative data, make it indexable, and index it. We can do >> > that locally as much as via the REST API. >> > >> > That btw is why the draft for referencing external dependencies >> > specifies file names (because file names give an ABI in the context of >> > a platform) - but we do need to identify the platform, and >> > platform.distribution should be good enough for that (or perhaps we >> > start depending on lsb-release for detection >> >> LSB has too much stuff in it, so most distros aren't LSB compliant out >> of the box - you have to install extra packages. >> >> /etc/os-release is a better option: >> http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html > > > As per this discussion, and because I've discovered that the entire > platform module is deprecated in 3.5 (and other amusements, like a > Ubuntu-modified version of platform that ships on Ubuntu - platform as > shipped with CPython detects Ubuntu as debian), I'm switching to > os-release, but even that is unreliable - the file does not exist in > CentOS/RHEL 6, for example. On Debian testing/sid installs, VERSION and > VERSION_ID are unset (which is not wrong - there is no release of testing, > but it does make identifying the platform more complicated since even the > codename is not provided other than at the end of PRETTY_NAME). Regardless > of whether a hash or a human-identifiable string is used to identify the > platform, there still needs to be a way to reliably detect it. > > Unless someone tells me not to, I'm going to default to using os-release > and then fall back to other methods in the event that os-release isn't > available, and this will be in some sort of library alongside pep425tags in > wheel/pip. > > FWIW, os-release's `ID_LIKE` gives us some ability to make assumptions > without explicit need for a binary-compatibility.cfg (although not blindly > - for example, CentOS sets this to "rhel fedora", but of course RHEL/CentOS > and Fedora versions are not congruent). > IIUC, then the value of os-release will be used to generalize the compatible versions of *.so deps of a given distribution at a point in time? This works for distros that don't change [libc] much during a release, but for rolling release models (e.g. arch, gentoo), IDK how this simplification will work. (This is a graph with nodes and edges (with attributes), and rules). * Keying/namespacing is a simplification which may work. * *conda preprocessing selectors* (and ~LSB-Python-Conda) ~'prune' large parts of the graph * Someone mentioned LSB[-Python-Base] (again as a simplification) * [[package, [version<=>verstr]]] Salt * __salt__['grains']['os'] = "Fedora" || "Ubuntu" * __salt__['grains']['os_family'] = "RedHat" || "Debian" * __salt__['grains']['osrelease'] = "22" || "14.04" * __salt__['grains']['oscodename'] = "Twenty Two" || "trusty" * Docs: http://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/topics/targeting/grains.html * Docs: http://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/ref/modules/all/salt.modules.grains.html#salt.modules.grains.get * Src: https://github.com/saltstack/salt/blob/develop/salt/grains/core.py#L1018 ("def os_data()") $ sudo salt-call --local grains.item os_family os osrelease oscodename local: ---------- os: Fedora os_family: RedHat oscodename: Twenty Two osrelease: 22 > --nate > > >> >> >> My original concern with using that was that it *over*specifies the >> distro (e.g. not only do CentOS and RHEL releases show up as different >> platforms, but so do X.Y releases within a series), but the >> binary-compatibility.txt idea resolves that issue, since a derived >> distro can explicitly identify itself as binary compatible with its >> upstream and be able to use the corresponding wheel files. >> >> Regards, >> Nick. >> >> -- >> Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >> _______________________________________________ >> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
