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

[Matthias Klose]

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.

  Matthias