From ncoghlan at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 01:27:27 2017 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:27:27 +1000 Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le In-Reply-To: References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br> <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com> <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br> <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br> <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br> <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br> Message-ID: (Sorry for the late follow-up - this list used to be filed under a mail subfolder that I didn't check very often, and I've only just now moved it to one that I look at more regularly) On 3 March 2017 at 04:05, Leonardo Bianconi wrote: > From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com] >> Given that the baseline images are Ubuntu 14.04 and CentOS 7, how about calling >> it linux2014? > > Actually I suggested the CentOS 7 as base just to make both architectures depending > of the same system, leaving the ubuntu 14.04 and 15.04 without support, as them are > older than CentOS 7, and the backward compatibility may not work. > > So, as CentOS 7 is from 2016, the suggestions would be linux2016, right? The CentOS 7 ABI baseline isn't from 2016 - it's from 2014, since the package versions are fixed by the corresponding RHEL release: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Life_Cycle_Dates Technically, the ABI compatibility baseline dates are even earlier than that, since they're already set at least by the public RHEL X beta, which is several months before the final release (Dec 2013 in the case of the RHEL 7 beta) While the decision to use `manylinux3` makes the `linux2014` vs `linux2016` discussion moot, that distinction is still important in terms of whether or not Ubuntu 14.04 is likely meet the manylinux3 ABI detection checks (I actually expect it will, although only testing will tell us for sure). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia From matt.mccormick at kitware.com Sat Apr 15 17:52:08 2017 From: matt.mccormick at kitware.com (Matt McCormick) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:52:08 -0400 Subject: [Wheel-builders] Python 2.7 patch for building scientific extension wheels Message-ID: Hi folks, I submitted a patch that addresses an old issue with the "hypot" function when building extensions for Python 2.7 on Windows: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/880 I don't have Visual Studio 2008, so help is needed for testing and to review / merge. Thanks, Matt From leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br Wed Apr 19 14:40:40 2017 From: leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br (Leonardo Bianconi) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:40:40 +0000 Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le In-Reply-To: References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br> <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com> <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br> <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br> <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br> <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br> Message-ID: <3df9646e636342889a5f1949b05e792f@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br> > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com] > Sent: quarta-feira, 5 de abril de 2017 02:27 > To: Leonardo Bianconi > Cc: Nathaniel Smith ; wheel-builders at python.org > Subject: Re: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le > > (Sorry for the late follow-up - this list used to be filed under a > mail subfolder that I didn't check very often, and I've only just now > moved it to one that I look at more regularly) > > On 3 March 2017 at 04:05, Leonardo Bianconi > wrote: > > From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com] > >> Given that the baseline images are Ubuntu 14.04 and CentOS 7, how about > calling > >> it linux2014? > > > > Actually I suggested the CentOS 7 as base just to make both architectures > depending > > of the same system, leaving the ubuntu 14.04 and 15.04 without support, as > them are > > older than CentOS 7, and the backward compatibility may not work. > > > > So, as CentOS 7 is from 2016, the suggestions would be linux2016, right? > > The CentOS 7 ABI baseline isn't from 2016 - it's from 2014, since the > package versions are fixed by the corresponding RHEL release: > https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Life_Cycle_Dates Yes you are right, I've just checked the versions and tested it with numpy, and worked, so we are able to have the CentOS 7 as base, keeping the Ubuntu 14.04 and later as supported OSs. Regarding the PEP, are we going to have only one new PEP for all architectures (tags manylinux2 and manylinux3 - discussion in the other thread)? Should this one be discarded? > > Technically, the ABI compatibility baseline dates are even earlier > than that, since they're already set at least by the public RHEL X > beta, which is several months before the final release (Dec 2013 in > the case of the RHEL 7 beta) > > While the decision to use `manylinux3` makes the `linux2014` vs > `linux2016` discussion moot, that distinction is still important in > terms of whether or not Ubuntu 14.04 is likely meet the manylinux3 ABI > detection checks (I actually expect it will, although only testing > will tell us for sure). > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia