[Distutils] [RFC] PEP 345 and PEP 386 updates

[David Lyon]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:36:08 -0400, Fred Drake <fdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> If we adopt such a micro-language (I'm reserving judgment until I've
> had more time to read the relevant PEPs carefully), I'd rather see the
> names match what's in the Python runtime more closely, probably only
> avoiding the call syntax.
> .. 
>   requires: pywin32; if sys.platform == 'win32'
> ..

I foresee problems with using constants from the python runtime as
they currently stand. Only for the simple reason that the existing
'constants' were good 5 years ago. But won't be good - next year.

For example, 'win32' refers to a specific windows because windows 
can now be 64 bit. 

Does win32 mean win64? It does now - but it shouldn't.

I propose windows and 32 and 64 as further qualifiers. So for example,
'windows' or 'windows-32' or 'windows-64'. Not to mention 'windows-xp-32' 
and 'windows-xp-64' and 'windows-ce'.

Maybe windows-128 is around the corner - who knows..

I respect those sys python constants.. but they are too unspecific
to be used here.

And for linux, what is 'linux2' ? It should just be linux.. to
make it less confusing.

Anyway, I'm coding this all up now into an example.

So far I have in my table..

standard_platform_bits = ('windows','linux','mac',
                          'xp','vista','7','ce'
                          'os/x',
                          '32','64',
                          'kde','gnome',
                          'wx','gtk',
                          'ubuntu','debian','suse','redhat','gentoo',
                          'centos','symbian'
                          )

I think we need new constants for package installation. It
will be less confusing. Whichever way we go.

David