>>>>> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis <martin at v.loewis.de> writes:
Martin> skip at pobox.com schrieb:
>> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible,
>> >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
>>
Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is
Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI for 2.5 since
Neal> it's already released and our policy is to keep it constant.
>>
>> It seems that adhering to LSB's constraints is going to create a new set of
>> problems for Python development. It's unclear to me what LSB brings to
>> Python other than a bunch of new headaches.
Martin> I won't try to defend it, but would suggest that an evaluation
Martin> is deferred until it is clear what the actual problems are, and
Martin> then to judge whether they are additional problems (or perhaps
Martin> just a tightening of procedures which we had been following all
Martin> along).
Taking one example from this thread, Python's bytecode has always been an
internal implementation detail. If I read the thread correctly there is at
least a request (if not a requirement) to make it part of an external ABI if
Python is to become part of the ABI. That may or may not be a large
technical challenge, but I think it would be a significant philosophical
change.
Martin> In any case, having Python in the LSB means that ISVs (software
Martin> vendors) who target LSB (rather than targetting specific Linux
Martin> distributions) could develop their applications also in Python
Martin> (whereas now they have to use C or C++).
Why? Lots of people write portable Python programs today.
Skip
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4