[Distutils] Working toward Linux wheel support

[Wes Turner]

On Aug 13, 2015 8:47 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
> <leorochael at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 13 August 2015 at 11:07, Nate Coraor <nate at bx.psu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>
> [...]
> >>> (2) the special hard-coded tag "centos5". (That's what everyone
actually
> >>> uses in practice, right?)
> >>
> >>
> >> The idea here is that we should attempt to install centos5 wheels if
more
> >> specific wheels for the platform aren't available?
> >
> >
> > Just my opinion, but although I'm +1 on Nate's efforts, I'm -1 on both
the
> > standard behavior for installation being the exact platform tag, and an
> > automatic fallback to cento5.
> >
> > IMO, on Linux, the default should always be to opt in to the desired
> > platform tags.
> >
> > We could make it so that the word `default` inside
> > `binary-compatibility.cfg` means an exact match on the distro version,
so
> > that we could simplify the documentation.
> >
> > But I don't want to upgrade to pip and suddenly find myself installing
> > binary wheels compiled by whomever for whatever platform I have no
control
> > with, even assuming the best of the package builders intentions.
> >
> > And I certainly don't want centos5 wheels accidentally installed on my
> > ubuntu servers unless I very specifically asked for them.
> >
> > The tiny pain inflicted by telling users to add a one-line text file in
a
> > very well known location (or two lines, for the added centos5), so that
they
> > can get the benefit of binary wheels on linux, is very small compared
to the
> > pain of repeatable install scripts suddenly behaving differently and
> > installing binary wheels in systems that were prepared to pay the price
of
> > source installs, including the setting of build environment variables
that
> > correctly tweaked their build process.
>
> I think there are two issues here:
>
> 1) You don't want centos5 wheels "accidentally" installed on an ubuntu
> server: Fair enough, you're right; we should probably make the "this
> wheel should work on pretty much any linux out there" tag be something
> that distributors have to explicitly opt into (similar to how they
> have to opt into creating universal wheels), rather than having it be
> something you could get by just typing 'pip wheel foo' on the right
> (wrong) machine.
>
> 2) You want it to be the case that if I type 'pip install foo' on a
> Linux machine, and pip finds both an sdist and a wheel, where the
> wheel is definitely compatible with the current system, then it should
> still always prefer the sdist unless configured otherwise: Here I
> disagree strongly. This is inconsistent with how things work on every
> other platform, it's inconsistent with how pip is being used on Linux
> right now with private wheelhouses, and the "tiny pain" of editing a
> file in /etc is a huge barrier to new users, many of whom are
> uncomfortable editing config files and may not have root access.

So, there would be a capability / osnamestr mapping, or just [...]?

Because my libc headers are different.

>
> --
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20150813/e29024a5/attachment.html>