[Python-Dev] Where is our official policy of what platforms we do support?

[Brett Cannon]

On Wed May 14 2014 at 11:33:27 AM, Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Am 14.05.2014 17:08, schrieb Brett Cannon:
> > On Wed May 14 2014 at 11:02:50 AM, R. David Murray <
> rdmurray at bitdance.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 May 2014 11:31:15 -0300, "Joao S. O. Bueno" <
> >> jsbueno at python.org.br> wrote:
> >>> +1 for an official policy that comes with a "permanent maintainer for
> >>> this platform required"  as part of the list
> >>> of requisites.
> >>>
> >>>   js
> >>>  -><-
> >>>
> >>> On 14 May 2014 11:20, Brett Cannon <bcannon at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Over the past week or so there have been 2 patches to add support for
> >>>> various UNIX OSs. Now I thought we had stopped trying to add new
> >> esoteric
> >>>> OSs (e.g. I had never heard of MirOS until the patch for it came in),
> >> but I
> >>>> can't find a PEP that spells out what it takes to get a platform
> >> supported
> >>>> (http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0011/ is about removing
> >> platforms,
> >>>> not keeping them or adding them unless you are re-adding one which
> >>>> apparently just takes a volunteer).
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we want an official policy written down in a PEP (yes, I can write
> >> it)?
> >>>> Should I keep closing these patches and saying that we are not adding
> >>>> support for new operating systems and be hand-wavy about it?
> >>
> >> In addition to a maintainer (who I think doesn't have to be a committer,
> >> though that would be ideal), I think a maintained buildbot should be a
> >> requirement for formal support.
> >>
> >
> > I would think someone how is/would be a core dev and a *stable* buildbot
> > are requirements.
>
> so, are aarch64-linux-gnu and powerpc64le-linux-gnu supported?  I assume
> there
> are no buildbots and there won't be any for a long time. Otoh various
> distros do
> ship python on these architectures. Or are these just new architectures
> for an
> existing platform?  If yes, then we should ask about architecture support
> too.
> The most prominent linux example are some RTLD constants which differ
> across
> some architectures.
>

I consider CPU and compiler separate things. As long as we have a buildbot
covering the CPU or compiler somehow I say they are covered (and someone is
willing to help make sure they continue to work). I'm not going to say that
we need a BSD ARM buildbot and a Linux ARM machine; having *a* machine with
ARM should be enough to shake out most arch-specific issues IMO. Same goes
with compilers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140514/4b1e781c/attachment.html>