> 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.
Ok, then it looks like there just won't be any support for module tagging of ABI-conforming modules. It might be possible to support something like this in the import code, but I would consider this pointless without accompanying distutils support. Then, by default, the modules just use the ABI tag that distutils assigns to them by default. It's interesting to note that #9807 got into distutils despite it being frozen (but this is not about ABI tags, right - so does distutils in 3.2 actually assign any ABI tag at all?) > I would favor changing distutils, if it can be done in a way that reasonably > preserves backward compatibility. It seems this is right out for policy reasons. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
