From leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br  Wed Mar  1 14:28:50 2017
From: leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br (Leonardo Bianconi)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:28:50 +0000
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com]
> Sent: segunda-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2017 09:09
> To: Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>
> Cc: Leonardo Bianconi <leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br>; wheel-
> builders at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
> 
> On 21 February 2017 at 06:08, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> Personally I try to avoid plans that require predicting the future years in advance,
> but... It's kind of up to you? The name is not the most important thing here :-).
> 
> A possible problem though is that I'm pretty sure centos doesn't support ppc.
> 
> It does, as of the more recent 7.x releases. Unfortunately, there's no ppc64le
> support in ci.centos.org at this point, though:
> https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2017-January/015617.html
> The ppc64le Docker base image is also currently still third party rather than
> generated as one of the default artifacts:
> https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2017-February/015661.html
> So until cloud-based ppc64le environments become more common as a target for
> running ppc64le containers, it may be necessary to pursue a Vagrant-based
> ppc64le build environment that uses a full machine image rather than a Docker
> image.

Thanks, I haven't noticed there was no official support on CentOS, the full machine
image is probably the way.

> Either way, I think the approach of defining an interim ppc64le specific target ABI,
> with a aim of converging back to the common manylinux baseline around the
> time of manylinux3 (aniticipated to be 2020'ish when RHEL 6 & CentOS 6 support
> ends) is likely to be the best available option.

So, I though two possibilities for this, put the version "0" (manylinux_0) or the
characters "beta" (manylinux_beta) for the tag. Is there any technical objection for
it? Any other suggestion?

Thanks!


> 
> Cheers,
> Nick.
> 
> 
> --
> Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia

From ncoghlan at gmail.com  Thu Mar  2 06:36:57 2017
From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:36:57 +1000
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
Message-ID: <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>

On 2 March 2017 at 05:28, Leonardo Bianconi <
leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br> wrote:

> > Either way, I think the approach of defining an interim ppc64le specific
> target ABI,
> > with a aim of converging back to the common manylinux baseline around the
> > time of manylinux3 (aniticipated to be 2020'ish when RHEL 6 & CentOS 6
> support
> > ends) is likely to be the best available option.
>
> So, I though two possibilities for this, put the version "0" (manylinux_0)
> or the
> characters "beta" (manylinux_beta) for the tag. Is there any technical
> objection for
> it? Any other suggestion?
>

Given that the baseline images are Ubuntu 14.04 and CentOS 7, how about
calling it linux2014?

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/attachments/20170302/13fc9d14/attachment.html>

From leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br  Thu Mar  2 13:05:33 2017
From: leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br (Leonardo Bianconi)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:05:33 +0000
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a609b3923b544eb8b1f503f3152023e1@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com]
> Sent: quinta-feira, 2 de mar?o de 2017 08:37
> To: Leonardo Bianconi <leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br>
> Cc: Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>; wheel-builders at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
> 
> On 2 March 2017 at 05:28, Leonardo Bianconi
> <leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br> wrote:
> > Either way, I think the approach of defining an interim ppc64le specific target
> ABI,
> > with a aim of converging back to the common manylinux baseline around the
> > time of manylinux3 (aniticipated to be 2020'ish when RHEL 6 & CentOS 6
> support
> > ends) is likely to be the best available option.
> 
> So, I though two possibilities for this, put the version "0" (manylinux_0) or the
> characters "beta" (manylinux_beta) for the tag. Is there any technical objection
> for
> it? Any other suggestion?
> 
> 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?

Do you see any issue basing it on CentOS7 and leaving older distros, for example
Ubuntu 14.04, without support?
Another thinking is the possibility, if the best way is make it support since Ubuntu
14.04, of make Ubuntu (currently ubuntu 14.04) be the base and change to CentOS
when both architecture have the same minimum supported version.

> 
> Cheers,
> Nick.
> 
> 
> --
> Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia

From leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br  Wed Mar  8 13:47:06 2017
From: leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br (Leonardo Bianconi)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:47:06 +0000
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leonardo Bianconi
> Sent: quinta-feira, 2 de mar?o de 2017 15:06
> To: 'Nick Coghlan' <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
> Cc: Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>; wheel-builders at python.org
> Subject: RE: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com]
> > Sent: quinta-feira, 2 de mar?o de 2017 08:37
> > To: Leonardo Bianconi <leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br>
> > Cc: Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>; wheel-builders at python.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
> >
> > On 2 March 2017 at 05:28, Leonardo Bianconi
> > <leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br> wrote:
> > > Either way, I think the approach of defining an interim ppc64le specific target
> > ABI,
> > > with a aim of converging back to the common manylinux baseline around the
> > > time of manylinux3 (aniticipated to be 2020'ish when RHEL 6 & CentOS 6
> > support
> > > ends) is likely to be the best available option.
> >
> > So, I though two possibilities for this, put the version "0" (manylinux_0) or the
> > characters "beta" (manylinux_beta) for the tag. Is there any technical objection
> > for
> > it? Any other suggestion?
> >
> > 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?
> 
> Do you see any issue basing it on CentOS7 and leaving older distros, for example
> Ubuntu 14.04, without support?
> Another thinking is the possibility, if the best way is make it support since Ubuntu
> 14.04, of make Ubuntu (currently ubuntu 14.04) be the base and change to
> CentOS when both architecture have the same minimum supported version.

Any suggestion on it?

> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nick.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia

From njs at pobox.com  Wed Mar  8 15:49:38 2017
From: njs at pobox.com (Nathaniel Smith)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:49:38 -0800
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
Message-ID: <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>

Honestly I think at this point you should roll up your sleeves and
write a proposal. You have to start making decisions at some point,
and you know your problems better than we do :-).

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Leonardo Bianconi
<leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leonardo Bianconi
>> Sent: quinta-feira, 2 de mar?o de 2017 15:06
>> To: 'Nick Coghlan' <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>; wheel-builders at python.org
>> Subject: RE: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: quinta-feira, 2 de mar?o de 2017 08:37
>> > To: Leonardo Bianconi <leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br>
>> > Cc: Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>; wheel-builders at python.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
>> >
>> > On 2 March 2017 at 05:28, Leonardo Bianconi
>> > <leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br> wrote:
>> > > Either way, I think the approach of defining an interim ppc64le specific target
>> > ABI,
>> > > with a aim of converging back to the common manylinux baseline around the
>> > > time of manylinux3 (aniticipated to be 2020'ish when RHEL 6 & CentOS 6
>> > support
>> > > ends) is likely to be the best available option.
>> >
>> > So, I though two possibilities for this, put the version "0" (manylinux_0) or the
>> > characters "beta" (manylinux_beta) for the tag. Is there any technical objection
>> > for
>> > it? Any other suggestion?
>> >
>> > 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?
>>
>> Do you see any issue basing it on CentOS7 and leaving older distros, for example
>> Ubuntu 14.04, without support?
>> Another thinking is the possibility, if the best way is make it support since Ubuntu
>> 14.04, of make Ubuntu (currently ubuntu 14.04) be the base and change to
>> CentOS when both architecture have the same minimum supported version.
>
> Any suggestion on it?
>
>>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Nick.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia



-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org

From leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br  Fri Mar 10 14:45:40 2017
From: leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br (Leonardo Bianconi)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:45:40 +0000
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>

So this is my proposal.
I kept the tag name the same as the one used for x86_64/i686 and the base OS as
CentOS 7. If we are thinking to converge the versions to the same on both
architectures in the future, the best way is keeping the same name.

Many parts of the PEP 513 were mentioned here, avoiding copying it, if be
necessary to duplicate the information here, please, let me know.

This is already on the draft format, but I have removed some parts that is not
important for now, and I will add it when submitting the draft (the preamble,
for example).

###############################################################################


Abstract
========

This PEP proposes the extension of PEP 513 [1]_, which means extending the work
done for platform tag ``manylinux1_``, initially created for x86_64 and i686
systems, to work on PowerPC 64 little endian (ppc64le), making wheel files
available for this architecture. The platform tag, of this architecture for
Python package built distributions, is called ``manylinux0_{ppc64le}``.


Rationale
=========

Currently on PowerPC 64 little endian, the ``pip install`` process downloads
the module source code and builds it on the fly, to after that, install it.
This process may cause a divergence on the presence of optional libraries it
uses. One example of that is numpy, which optionally can use the OpenBlas [2]_;
or BLAS [3]_; or neither of them. For each situation the performance of the
module is affected and, badly enough, an end user is not able to know what is
causing that.

Building wheel files for the new architecture considers all work done on
PEP 513 [1]_ with some changes proposed to handle the parameters for another
architectures.


The ``manylinux0`` policy
=========================

Based on PEP 513 [1]_, the policy follows the same rules and library
dependencies, but with the following versions for backward compatibility
and base Operational System:

* Backward compatibility versions:
    GLIBC <= 2.17
    CXXABI <= 1.3.7
    GLIBCXX <= 3.4.9
    GCC <= 4.8.5

* Base Operational System:
  The stock O.S. release need to be the CentOS 7 [4]_, as it is the first
  CentOS release available for PowerPC64 little endian.

The tag version for ppc64le architecture starts with 0 (``manylinux0_``). This
version will be considered a beta version, as currently it is not able to apply
the same version number used to x86_64/i686. That occurs because of the base
O.S. system, which for x86_64/i686 is CentOS 5.11 [5]_, while for ppc64le is
CentOS 7 [4]_. This beta version will be kept until both architectures be based
on the same O.S. system, i.e., CentOS 7 [4]_, when the ppc64le tag version may
be changed to converge to the manylinux baseline.


Compilation of Compliant Wheels
===============================

As compiling wheel files that meet the ``manylinux0`` standard for PowerPC64
little endian requires a specific Linux distro and version, the following tool
is provided:


Docker Image (Will be implemented when CentOS be available on Docker)
------------

The Docker Image is based on CentOS 7 [4]_, which is the first PowerPC 64
little endian CentOS release. The Image contains all necessary tools in the
requested version to build wheel files (gcc, g++ and gfortran 4.8.5).


Machine Image
-------------

A full machine image containing all necessary software is provided for
developers until CentOS be available on Docker for ppc64le.


Cloud Service
-------------

There are Cloud Services that provide ppc64le virtual machines for development.
These machines can be used for the development of the wheel files, as
CentOS 7 [4]_ an option for O.S.. All steps to obtain a machine on it is
available for developers.


Auditwheel
----------

This tool is an already provided item from PEP 513 [1]_, but needs to support
the new architecture, so we propose the following changes:

1. Change the JSON file to handle more than one architecture, adding the
   compatible libraries and versions list for it.
2. Add a new filed in the JSON object to handle a list of architecture that the
   object is compatible.
3. When reading the JSON file, only consider the objects with the correspondent
   machine architecture.


Platform detection for Installers 
=================================

The platform detection is almost the same as described in PEP 513 [1]_, but
with the following proposed change:

1. Add the platform ppc64le in the platform list as a compatible one:
   [``linux-x86_64``, ``linux-i686``, ``linux-ppc64le``]
2. Add an if to switch architecture and consider the correct version of the
   GLIBC on ``return have_compatible_glibc(2, 5)``.


References
==========

.. [1] PEP 513 -- A Platform Tag for Portable Linux Built Distributions
   (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0513/)
.. [2] OpenBLAS -- An optimized BLAS library
   (http://www.openblas.net/)
.. [3] BLAS -- Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms
   (http://www.netlib.org/blas/)
.. [4] CentOS 7 Release Notes
   (https://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS7)
.. [5] CentOS 5.11 Release Notes
   (https://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.11)


###############################################################################

From stefanv at berkeley.edu  Fri Mar 10 18:20:31 2017
From: stefanv at berkeley.edu (Stefan van der Walt)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:20:31 -0800
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
Message-ID: <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017, at 11:45, Leonardo Bianconi wrote:
> I kept the tag name the same as the one used for x86_64/i686 and the base
> OS as
> CentOS 7. If we are thinking to converge the versions to the same on both
> architectures in the future, the best way is keeping the same name.

Just to clarify for my own understanding: if we moved to CentOS 7,
wouldn't that be manylinux1?

St?fan

From njs at pobox.com  Fri Mar 10 19:18:01 2017
From: njs at pobox.com (Nathaniel Smith)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:18:01 -0800
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Stefan van der Walt
<stefanv at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017, at 11:45, Leonardo Bianconi wrote:
>> I kept the tag name the same as the one used for x86_64/i686 and the base
>> OS as
>> CentOS 7. If we are thinking to converge the versions to the same on both
>> architectures in the future, the best way is keeping the same name.
>
> Just to clarify for my own understanding: if we moved to CentOS 7,
> wouldn't that be manylinux1?

For x86/x86_64, manylinux1 is CentOS 5, and presumably manylinux2 will
be CentOS 6.

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org

From donald at stufft.io  Fri Mar 10 19:19:32 2017
From: donald at stufft.io (Donald Stufft)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:19:32 -0500
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B646E765-88AB-4879-9010-6700CA5AAB9F@stufft.io>


> On Mar 10, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> For x86/x86_64, manylinux1 is CentOS 5, and presumably manylinux2 will
> be CentOS 6.


I wonder if there isn?t any reason not to just jump straight to CentOS7, we have manylinux1 for old and crufty and CentOS7 for new and shiny then?

Obviously nobody is currently talking about that seriously yet It think :)

?
Donald Stufft



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/attachments/20170310/38041644/attachment-0001.html>

From stefanv at berkeley.edu  Fri Mar 10 23:46:55 2017
From: stefanv at berkeley.edu (Stefan van der Walt)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:46:55 -0800
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <B646E765-88AB-4879-9010-6700CA5AAB9F@stufft.io>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B646E765-88AB-4879-9010-6700CA5AAB9F@stufft.io>
Message-ID: <15abbb0de18.273e.d9ac9213ada4a807322f99081296784b@berkeley.edu>

I guess my question was whether the re-usage of manylinux0 is correct. I 
would guess not, if the other PPC build system has different dependencies.

St?fan


On March 10, 2017 16:19:38 Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:

>
>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> For x86/x86_64, manylinux1 is CentOS 5, and presumably manylinux2 will
>> be CentOS 6.
>
>
> I wonder if there isn?t any reason not to just jump straight to CentOS7, we 
> have manylinux1 for old and crufty and CentOS7 for new and shiny then?
>
> Obviously nobody is currently talking about that seriously yet It think :)
>
> ?
> Donald Stufft
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/attachments/20170310/33571846/attachment.html>

From leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br  Mon Mar 13 15:19:24 2017
From: leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br (Leonardo Bianconi)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:19:24 +0000
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <15abbb0de18.273e.d9ac9213ada4a807322f99081296784b@berkeley.edu>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnFnrsUdmF4O-PFcY0boLoc3-tBpUA4K-Do4gGrA_2wvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7d6LwuNWb8_m+aaMXWUM6=S+E1XPuBUgOxe9Ez2uFEXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90c09e61-7ae0-9f3f-a295-76866a8d7dbc@br.ibm.com>
 <5200867097914522b4d702d049db8672@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7fwoynoOCZuj-T04Z9f+OTtW+Y7nMPiwnWE6wMe8P7oFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7cTV+j6yxKnih3P_K1dPXZMRp+DkaBUH-beS8t3B68v8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJVwB=v2Jg7KvYNQZmdbnu2_zQGX=-XB6Cmu=zVDPYPZvtmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B646E765-88AB-4879-9010-6700CA5AAB9F@stufft.io>
 <15abbb0de18.273e.d9ac9213ada4a807322f99081296784b@berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <4d471c33e02f470594e1633d7e8564af@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wheel-builders [mailto:wheel-builders-
> bounces+leonardo.bianconi=eldorado.org.br at python.org] On Behalf Of Stefan
> van der Walt
> Sent: s?bado, 11 de mar?o de 2017 01:47
> To: Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io>; Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>
> Cc: wheel-builders at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
> 
> I guess my question was whether the re-usage of manylinux0 is correct. I would
> guess not, if the other PPC build system has different dependencies.

The tag manylinux0, as far as I know, wasn't used, it started with "1". I'm
suggesting the "0" to indicate that it is a beta version, and only when both
architectures have the same base O.S., the version may be the same, i. e., when
CentOS 7 be the base for x86_64/i686.

Which other PPC build system has different dependencies?

> St?fan
> On March 10, 2017 16:19:38 Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> For x86/x86_64, manylinux1 is CentOS 5, and presumably manylinux2 will
> be CentOS 6.
> 
> 
> I wonder if there isn?t any reason not to just jump straight to CentOS7, we have
> manylinux1 for old and crufty and CentOS7 for new and shiny then?
> 
> Obviously nobody is currently talking about that seriously yet It think :)
> 
> ?
> Donald Stufft
> 
> 


From brenohl at br.ibm.com  Wed Mar 15 12:54:40 2017
From: brenohl at br.ibm.com (Breno Leitao)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:54:40 -0300
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <15abbb0de18.273e.d9ac9213ada4a807322f99081296784b@berkeley.edu>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B646E765-88AB-4879-9010-6700CA5AAB9F@stufft.io>
 <15abbb0de18.273e.d9ac9213ada4a807322f99081296784b@berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <1d5f1757-bd7c-13ac-519a-53811fd7c0fd@br.ibm.com>

Hi Stefan,

On 03/11/2017 01:46 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> I guess my question was whether the re-usage of manylinux0 is correct. I
> would guess not, if the other PPC build system has different dependencies.

Right, What would you suggest? What about manylinux2?

Since manylinux0 is CentOS 5, manylinux 1 is CentOS 6, and manylinux2 is CentOS 7

By the way, the userspace for CentOS is equal on both amd64 and ppc64le,
thus, it would make the manylinux concept arch independent.


From njs at pobox.com  Wed Mar 15 17:59:13 2017
From: njs at pobox.com (Nathaniel Smith)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:59:13 -0700
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <1d5f1757-bd7c-13ac-519a-53811fd7c0fd@br.ibm.com>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B646E765-88AB-4879-9010-6700CA5AAB9F@stufft.io>
 <15abbb0de18.273e.d9ac9213ada4a807322f99081296784b@berkeley.edu>
 <1d5f1757-bd7c-13ac-519a-53811fd7c0fd@br.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <CAPJVwBkrd5uY68VHHrOt+7ucu_3NT17=mHkxk3QtEGNkqbEC1Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Breno Leitao <brenohl at br.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 03/11/2017 01:46 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
>> I guess my question was whether the re-usage of manylinux0 is correct. I
>> would guess not, if the other PPC build system has different dependencies.
>
> Right, What would you suggest? What about manylinux2?
>
> Since manylinux0 is CentOS 5, manylinux 1 is CentOS 6, and manylinux2 is CentOS 7

You've got an off-by-one error :-). manylinux1 is CentOS 5.

I'm a little nervous about predicting what manylinux3 will be when we
haven't even defined manylinux2, but OTOH I guess there isn't really
any good reason *not* to define manylinux3 right now -- CentOS 7 isn't
going anywhere, and if something major changes between now and CentOS
6's EOL that makes some other system more attractive as a base than
CentOS 7, we can always make that manylinux4.

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org

From donald at stufft.io  Wed Mar 15 18:05:28 2017
From: donald at stufft.io (Donald Stufft)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:05:28 -0400
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <CAPJVwBkrd5uY68VHHrOt+7ucu_3NT17=mHkxk3QtEGNkqbEC1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B646E765-88AB-4879-9010-6700CA5AAB9F@stufft.io>
 <15abbb0de18.273e.d9ac9213ada4a807322f99081296784b@berkeley.edu>
 <1d5f1757-bd7c-13ac-519a-53811fd7c0fd@br.ibm.com>
 <CAPJVwBkrd5uY68VHHrOt+7ucu_3NT17=mHkxk3QtEGNkqbEC1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6157E6CE-F45D-402C-9516-5D18D5E3AA1E@stufft.io>


> On Mar 15, 2017, at 5:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Breno Leitao <brenohl at br.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Stefan,
>> 
>> On 03/11/2017 01:46 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
>>> I guess my question was whether the re-usage of manylinux0 is correct. I
>>> would guess not, if the other PPC build system has different dependencies.
>> 
>> Right, What would you suggest? What about manylinux2?
>> 
>> Since manylinux0 is CentOS 5, manylinux 1 is CentOS 6, and manylinux2 is CentOS 7
> 
> You've got an off-by-one error :-). manylinux1 is CentOS 5.
> 
> I'm a little nervous about predicting what manylinux3 will be when we
> haven't even defined manylinux2, but OTOH I guess there isn't really
> any good reason *not* to define manylinux3 right now -- CentOS 7 isn't
> going anywhere, and if something major changes between now and CentOS
> 6's EOL that makes some other system more attractive as a base than
> CentOS 7, we can always make that manylinux4.
> 

Is there much reason not to jump straight to CentOS7 for manylinux2? We still have manylinux1 for old and busted distro?s yes?


?
Donald Stufft



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/attachments/20170315/35e9afe4/attachment.html>

From njs at pobox.com  Wed Mar 15 18:36:10 2017
From: njs at pobox.com (Nathaniel Smith)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:36:10 -0700
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <6157E6CE-F45D-402C-9516-5D18D5E3AA1E@stufft.io>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B646E765-88AB-4879-9010-6700CA5AAB9F@stufft.io>
 <15abbb0de18.273e.d9ac9213ada4a807322f99081296784b@berkeley.edu>
 <1d5f1757-bd7c-13ac-519a-53811fd7c0fd@br.ibm.com>
 <CAPJVwBkrd5uY68VHHrOt+7ucu_3NT17=mHkxk3QtEGNkqbEC1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <6157E6CE-F45D-402C-9516-5D18D5E3AA1E@stufft.io>
Message-ID: <CAPJVwBkiL-jVnzbS7ompD9SHaxWEfJy-Z2FQCXeGTgH2CxfECQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> Is there much reason not to jump straight to CentOS7 for manylinux2? We
> still have manylinux1 for old and busted distro?s yes?

I assume there are people out there running CentOS 6, and it'd be good
if we could distribute wheels that work for them without using CentOS
5 once it goes EOL?

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org

From leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br  Tue Mar 21 08:01:24 2017
From: leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br (Leonardo Bianconi)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:01:24 +0000
Subject: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
In-Reply-To: <CAPJVwBkrd5uY68VHHrOt+7ucu_3NT17=mHkxk3QtEGNkqbEC1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d5b0b78fc144cf39f3942494a01a130@serv031.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1e62cf9224004878a5354b4af4eef911@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwB=m==q7-2c11waGZfuYGZV-EAFJg02yxO-a0=EbZK352w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93c0aedde3324513ab18c11a097586a4@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBnBx9781Os-1f4iA2hnvAXT6d=mf9Di8Fgi2F0eTy=KmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADiSq7c-==Owi7a=awoZNUkoAzYM8JCsoH9nMFDVd-poKmn2SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <879d7591d62344008db3465a3df410fe@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CADiSq7eq2ES1-8VdBx_1fDZAxtBGXR5X+V0RZZvWqtWTqctHWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <555468d07c0441b8bd3ff105f565855e@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <CAPJVwBmMTdyV-4f=AvORDRZCEUOFOAYPprGSRS5DitRgidkUOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e3ea16d8ad994da38f9d3a6e66913fc6@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>
 <1489188031.146093.907552352.5EF7A881@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAPJVwBmyAiefEKg_5A=9RDSFRMNhrJj5tDYJZcNOf5oC7_RSxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B646E765-88AB-4879-9010-6700CA5AAB9F@stufft.io>
 <15abbb0de18.273e.d9ac9213ada4a807322f99081296784b@berkeley.edu>
 <1d5f1757-bd7c-13ac-519a-53811fd7c0fd@br.ibm.com>
 <CAPJVwBkrd5uY68VHHrOt+7ucu_3NT17=mHkxk3QtEGNkqbEC1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4a463332872a4d9d8d98b9ce326e4096@serv030.corp.eldorado.org.br>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wheel-builders [mailto:wheel-builders-
> bounces+leonardo.bianconi=eldorado.org.br at python.org] On Behalf Of
> Nathaniel Smith
> Sent: quarta-feira, 15 de mar?o de 2017 18:59
> To: Breno Leit?o <brenohl at br.ibm.com>
> Cc: wheel-builders at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
> 
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Breno Leitao <brenohl at br.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Hi Stefan,
> >
> > On 03/11/2017 01:46 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> >> I guess my question was whether the re-usage of manylinux0 is correct. I
> >> would guess not, if the other PPC build system has different dependencies.
> >
> > Right, What would you suggest? What about manylinux2?
> >
> > Since manylinux0 is CentOS 5, manylinux 1 is CentOS 6, and manylinux2 is
> CentOS 7
> 
> You've got an off-by-one error :-). manylinux1 is CentOS 5.
> 
> I'm a little nervous about predicting what manylinux3 will be when we
> haven't even defined manylinux2, but OTOH I guess there isn't really
> any good reason *not* to define manylinux3 right now -- CentOS 7 isn't
> going anywhere, and if something major changes between now and CentOS
> 6's EOL that makes some other system more attractive as a base than
> CentOS 7, we can always make that manylinux4.

Ok, so the tag will call manylinux3.
Any other comment? Otherwise I will send the proposal to the distutils-sig.

Thanks for reviewing!

> 
> -n
> 
> --
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wheel-builders mailing list
> Wheel-builders at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/wheel-builders