On 26/09/2021 13.07, jack.jan...@cwi.nl wrote:
The problem with the stable ABI is that very few developers are
targeting it. I’m not sure why not, whether it has to do with
incompleteness of the ABI, or with issues targeting it easily and your
builds and then having pip/PyPI do the right things
> On 26 Sep 2021, at 04:09, MRAB wrote:
>
> On 2021-09-26 00:14, jack.jan...@cwi.nl wrote:
>> I think we really need to come up with some scheme whereby extension
>> packages become more long-lived than a single Python release...
> You mean, something like the Python ABI (PEP 384, Stable Applic
> On 26 Sep 2021, at 05:49, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 5:40 PM wrote:
>> PyPI packages and wheels are targeted to specific Python versions, which
>> means that any project that depends on some of the larger extension packages
>> (of which there are many, and many of wh
On 26/09/2021 05:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[snip]
As for the C-API... Python is 30 years old. Has it ever had a stable
C-API before now? Hasn't it *always* been the case that C packages have
targetted a single version and need to be rebuilt from source on every
release?
No.
These are not r
