On 12/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be
feasible,
>> >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
>>
Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is
Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI for 2.5since
Neal> it's already released and our policy is to keep it constant.
>>
>> It seems that adhering to LSB's constraints is going to create a
new set of
>> problems for Python development. It's unclear to me what LSB
brings to
>> Python other than a bunch of new headaches.
Martin> I won't try to defend it, but would suggest that an evaluation
Martin> is deferred until it is clear what the actual problems are,
and
Martin> then to judge whether they are additional problems (or perhaps
Martin> just a tightening of procedures which we had been following
all
Martin> along).
Taking one example from this thread, Python's bytecode has always been an
internal implementation detail. If I read the thread correctly there is
at
least a request (if not a requirement) to make it part of an external ABI
if
Python is to become part of the ABI. That may or may not be a large
technical challenge, but I think it would be a significant philosophical
change.
I don't think we are being asked to standardize the bytecode, but that we
will accept .pyc files as generated by 2.4 in future interpreters as
legitimate. That seems to implicitly require us to standardize the bytecode
*and* they .pyc file format.
-Brett
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
