On 6 February 2018 at 16:05, Mark Williams wrote:
> As a counter point: presumably a `manylinux` standard that supports
> those architectures will require a PEP, in which case the author(s)
> will have read the preceding `manylinx` PEPs, either to actively
> borrow as much as possible or to unders
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Jonathan Helmus wrote:
> Moving to GCC 5 and above will introduced the new libstd++ ABI. [1] The
> manylinux2 standard need to define which ABI compiled libraries should be
> compiled against as older version of libstdc++ will not support the new ABI.
> From what
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:15:50PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Thanks for this!
>
> Something we've discussed in the past is switching manylinux over to a
> variant of CalVer, where the manylinux version number inherently
> conveys the era of operating system compatibility that each variant is
On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 12:11:51AM -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> Huzzah! This is an amazing bit of work, and I'm glad you got that
> weird email problem sorted out :-).
Me too! I'd rather deal with Linux ABI fussiness than email any day
of the week.
> >ABI. *[Citation for UCS ABI tags?]*
On 02/03/2018 02:11 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Docker Images
-
``manylinux2`` Docker images based on CentOS 6.9 x86_64 and i686 are
provided for building binary ``linux`` wheels that can reliably be
converted to ``manylinux2`` wheels. [8]_ These images come with a
full compiler suit
On 6 February 2018 at 00:38, Ivan Pozdeev wrote:
> On 05.02.2018 16:51, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Or, we can just put the year directly in the version number, so that
>> publishers can go "I'm happy to target manylinux2010, because I'm fine
>> with users of distros that are more than 7 years old need
On 6 February 2018 at 00:35, Joni Orponen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> As an illustrative example, manylinux1 was essentially manylinux2007,
>> and it's now running into problems precisely because that baseline is
>> more than a decade old. That's not obvious
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Ivan Pozdeev via Distutils-SIG wrote:
> The point is, a year has negative informativity in this case.
>
> The very reasoning "compatible with most distributions released since
> year " is flawed 'cuz it's vague and nonintuitive. Which is "most"
> distributions? W
On 05.02.2018 16:51, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 5 February 2018 at 18:03, Ivan Pozdeev via Distutils-SIG
wrote:
On 05.02.2018 5:15, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The intended benefit of that is that it would allow folks to go ahead
and propose newer manylinux variants that allow for ppc64le and
aarch64 supp
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> As an illustrative example, manylinux1 was essentially manylinux2007,
> and it's now running into problems precisely because that baseline is
> more than a decade old. That's not obvious if all you know is the
> sequential number "1", but it m
On 5 February 2018 at 18:03, Ivan Pozdeev via Distutils-SIG
wrote:
> On 05.02.2018 5:15, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> The intended benefit of that is that it would allow folks to go ahead
>> and propose newer manylinux variants that allow for ppc64le and
>> aarch64 support as needed, without having to g
On 05.02.2018 5:15, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 1 February 2018 at 10:01, Mark Williams wrote:
Hi everyone!
The manylinux1 platform tag has been tremendously useful, but unfortunately
it's showing its age:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-April/030360.html
https://mail.python.
12 matches
Mail list logo
