Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: On 02.12.2014 19:02, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Sticking to bitness should be easy (although I wonder if it would be > desirable for platforms with fat binaries - Ned?). If we can go the extra > mile and include platform identification all the better, of course.
I hear the "can of worms" alarm ringing :-) Seriously, I think that putting platform infos into the file name is bound to cause more trouble than it tries to solve. Fat builds leave the decision to the linker, which is a good method and avoids the file name clashes. I think we should only focus on platforms where fat builds are uncommon, while at the same time you do have to support multiple architectures, like e.g. Windows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_binary Note that on Linux, 32-bit and 64-bit versions are typically placed into different directory trees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard so I'm not sure whether it's a real problem on Linux. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22980> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
