RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jul 24 00:19:41 CEST 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-July/102288.html

On Jul 23, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

>On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>>>  I'd be open to adding the
>>> platform name to the tag, but I'd probably define it as part of the
>>> implementation field, e.g. foo.cpython-linux2-32m.so.  Or maybe
>>> start with the platform name, e.g.  foo.linux2-cpython-32m.  This
>>> isn't a strong preference though.
>>
>>I don't have a strong opionion, but placing the platform name at the
>>start is probably better to be consistent with
>>sysconfig.get_platform().
>
>What about the architecture (i386, amd64)?  With every increase in
>length I start to get more concerned.  We could encode the platform
>and architecture, but that gets into cryptic territory.  OTOH, would
>you really co-install i386 and amd64 shared libraries on the same
>machine?  (hello NFS ;).

Thinking about this some more, I'd rather *not* include the platform or
architecture in the tag by default.  They aren't really necessary to support
the instigating use case and will probably be fairly uncommon.

I'd be okay including a configure option to allow you to add whatever you want
after the implementation, version, and flags.  E.g. something like:

    ./configure --with-abi-tag-extension=linux2

would lead to foo.cpython-32m-linux2.so, so not the nicer names we'd prefer
but probably good enough for your purposes.

Would that work for you?
-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100724/c1ef0a16/attachment.pgp>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-July/102288.html below:

[Python-Dev] versioned .so files for Python 3.2