[Python-Dev] LSB: Binary compatibility

[Brett Cannon]

On 12/5/06, skip at pobox.com <skip at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis <martin at v.loewis.de> writes:
>
>     Martin> skip at pobox.com schrieb:
>     >> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be
> feasible,
>     >> >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
>     >>
>     Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version.  The ABI is
>     Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5.  We can't change the ABI for 2.5since
>     Neal> it's already released and our policy is to keep it constant.
>     >>
>     >> It seems that adhering to LSB's constraints is going to create a
> new set of
>     >> problems for Python development.  It's unclear to me what LSB
> brings to
>     >> Python other than a bunch of new headaches.
>
>     Martin> I won't try to defend it, but would suggest that an evaluation
>     Martin> is deferred until it is clear what the actual problems are,
> and
>     Martin> then to judge whether they are additional problems (or perhaps
>     Martin> just a tightening of procedures which we had been following
> all
>     Martin> along).
>
> Taking one example from this thread, Python's bytecode has always been an
> internal implementation detail.  If I read the thread correctly there is
> at
> least a request (if not a requirement) to make it part of an external ABI
> if
> Python is to become part of the ABI.  That may or may not be a large
> technical challenge, but I think it would be a significant philosophical
> change.


I don't think we are being asked to standardize the bytecode, but that we
will accept .pyc files as generated by 2.4 in future interpreters as
legitimate.  That seems to implicitly require us to standardize the bytecode
*and* they .pyc file format.

-Brett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20061205/5f2a9f05/attachment.html