Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-30 Thread Petr Viktorin
On 03/30/2017 06:31 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 29 March 2017 at 02:18, Paul Moore wrote: On 28 March 2017 at 12:24, Miro Hrončok wrote: I'd like some clarification on what ABI compatibility we can expect. * Should the ABI be stable across patch

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-29 Thread Martin Panter
On 30 March 2017 at 15:31, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 29 March 2017 at 02:18, Paul Moore wrote: >> On 28 March 2017 at 12:24, Miro Hrončok wrote: >>> I'd like some clarification on what ABI compatibility we can expect. >>> * Should

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-29 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 29 March 2017 at 02:18, Paul Moore wrote: > On 28 March 2017 at 12:24, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> I'd like some clarification on what ABI compatibility we can expect. >> * Should the ABI be stable across patch releases (so calling >>

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-29 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 28 March 2017 at 17:31, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> IMO this is a bug, and depending on how many packages are affected it might >> even call for an emergency 3.6.2. The worst case is that we start getting

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-29 Thread Paul Moore
On 28 March 2017 at 17:31, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > IMO this is a bug, and depending on how many packages are affected it might > even call for an emergency 3.6.2. The worst case is that we start getting > large numbers of packages uploaded to pypi that claim to be 3.6.0

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-28 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Mar 28, 2017 10:54 AM, "Steve Dower" wrote: On 28Mar2017 1035, Paul Moore wrote: > On 28 March 2017 at 18:05, Glenn Linderman wrote: > >> Somewhere I got the idea that extension authors were supposed to build >> against the n.m.0 releases,

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-28 Thread Steve Dower
On 28Mar2017 1035, Paul Moore wrote: On 28 March 2017 at 18:05, Glenn Linderman wrote: Somewhere I got the idea that extension authors were supposed to build against the n.m.0 releases, expressly so that the extensions would then be compatible with the whole n.m.x series

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-28 Thread Paul Moore
On 28 March 2017 at 18:05, Glenn Linderman wrote: > Somewhere I got the idea that extension authors were supposed to build > against the n.m.0 releases, expressly so that the extensions would then be > compatible with the whole n.m.x series of releases. Did I dream that?

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-28 Thread Glenn Linderman
On 3/28/2017 9:18 AM, Paul Moore wrote: On 28 March 2017 at 12:24, Miro Hrončok wrote: I'd like some clarification on what ABI compatibility we can expect. * Should the ABI be stable across patch releases (so calling PySlice_AdjustIndices from an existing macro would be

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-28 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Mar 28, 2017 8:29 AM, "Serhiy Storchaka" wrote: On 28.03.17 14:24, Miro Hrončok wrote: > However, recently we found an issue with this approach [1]: an extension > module built against Python 3.6.1 cannot be run on Python 3.6.0, because > it uses a macro that, in 3.6.1,

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-28 Thread Paul Moore
On 28 March 2017 at 12:24, Miro Hrončok wrote: > I'd like some clarification on what ABI compatibility we can expect. > * Should the ABI be stable across patch releases (so calling > PySlice_AdjustIndices from an existing macro would be a bug)? > * Should the ABI be

Re: [Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-28 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
On 28.03.17 14:24, Miro Hrončok wrote: However, recently we found an issue with this approach [1]: an extension module built against Python 3.6.1 cannot be run on Python 3.6.0, because it uses a macro that, in 3.6.1, uses the new PySlice_AdjustIndices function. The macro expanding to

[Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with

2017-03-28 Thread Miro Hrončok
Hi, as per [0], ABI of the C API is generally not stable and the binary compatibility may break between versions. It is hard from the text to know whether it talks about minor versions (such as 3.6 vs 3.5) or patch versions (such as 3.6.1 vs 3.6.0). In Fedora we currently only keep track