On 01 Aug 2014, at 03:54, Glenn Linderman <v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com> wrote: > I've no idea what you mean by "userland" in your suggestions above or below, > but doesn't the Android environment qualify as a (multi-versioned) platform > independently of its host OS? Seems I've read about an Android > reimplementation for Windows, for example. As long as all the services > expected by Android are faithfully produced, the host OS may be irrelevant to > an Android application... in which case, I would think/propose/suggest the > platform name should change from win32 or linux to Android (and the Android > version be reflected in version parts).
That might be a way to look at it. So far I assumed that the Android environment would be largely Linux-based, since the Android NDK (Native Development Kit, the SDK used for creating C/C++-level applications) is used for my patch which gives a GNU-ish toolchain with a Linux/Unixy environment. I know an implementation exists that claims to run Android on top of an NT kernel, but I honestly have little idea of how it works. Given how a fair amount of things ‘already work’ with the platform set to linux, I’m not sure if changing sys.platform would be a good idea… but that’s from my NDK perspective. > Is your P.S. suggestive that you would not be willing to support your port > for use by others? Of course, until it is somewhat complete, it is hard to > know how complete and compatible it can be. Oh, no, nothing like that. It’s just that I’m not sure, as goes for anything, that it would be accepted into mainline CPython. Better safe than sorry in that aspect: maybe the maintainers don’t want to support Android in the first place. :) Kind regards, Shiz
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
