On Dec 02, 2010, at 11:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >Well, the PEP 384 text in PEP 3149 specifies a change. It's not clear >whether this change was accepted when PEP 3149 was accepted, or whether >it was accepted when PEP 384 was accepted, or whether it was not >accepted at all, or whether it was just proposed.
From my point of view, the PEP 3149 text is just a proposal. It leaves the final decision to PEP 384, but tries to address some of the issues raised during the PEP 3149 discussion. I think it is within PEP 384's scope to make the final decisions about it. >In any case, without the change, you won't naturally get extension >modules that use the abi3 tag proposed in 3149. I would favor changing distutils, if it can be done in a way that reasonably preserves backward compatibility. I suppose it's impossible to know all the ways 3rd party code has reached into distutils, but I think you can make fairly good judgements about whether a change is backward compatible or not. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
