On 8 February 2018 at 18:01, Mark Williams <m...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
> Highlights from the distutils-sig thread and pypa/manylinux PR so far:
> - Should `manylinux` use CalVer (http://calver.org) ?

Just noting a subtlety of the CalVer suggestion so folks don't need to
dig it out of the distutils-sig threads: the proposal is to switch
from sequential numbering to instead using the approximate release
year of the library versions specified in the manylinux baseline
(*not* the year when we happen to define any given manylinux variant).

So if manylinux1 had been versioned that way, it would likely have
been either manylinux2006 (based on when glibc 2.5 was released) or
manylinux2007 (based on when RHEL 5 was released).

For PEP 571, the primary marker version is glibc 2.12, and the
reference distro is RHEL(/CentOS 6, giving a proposed variant name of
manylinux2010 (since both glibc 2.12 and RHEL 6.0 were released that

We don't expect this to make much difference for end users (since this
should all be a hidden implementation detail of their package
installer no matter what versioning scheme we use), but for publishers
and tool developers, including the year gives a quick and convenient
reminder of the general vintage of each target baseline.


Nick Coghlan   |   ncogh...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
Wheel-builders mailing list

Reply via email to