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
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
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
>>
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
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
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,
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
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?
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
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,
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo