On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > I guess my underlying question is, if we’re considering static linking (or > shipping the .so dll style) to be good enough for everything not on this > list, why are these specific packages on the list? Why are we not selecting > the absolute bare minimum packages that you *cannot* reasonably static link > or ship the .so? >
This is a fair question. The principle, practical reason is that we followed the lead of what other projects have done here for distributing cross-distro binaries, especially Anaconda and Canopy. I also just looked at the external libraries required by the portable firefox Linux binaries ( https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/43.0.4/system-requirements/). The additional shared libraries that the firefox pre-compiled binaries require that are not included in our list are libXcomposite.so.1 libXdamage.so.1 libXfixes.so.3 libXt.so.6 libasound.so.2 libatk-1.0.so.0 libcairo.so.2 libdbus-1.so.3 libdbus-glib-1.so.2 libfontconfig.so.1 libfreetype.so.6 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libgio-2.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 I would be open to including some of these libraries in the manylinux1 policy, or in a subsequent update (manylinux2, etc). -Robert
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
