On Jun 23, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Martin v. Löwis <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: >> >> Would that mitigate the pain, assuming that >> Steve (or someone else) would be willing to build the additional >> installers for the transition period? I've done something similar on a >> smaller scale with the OS X 32-bit installer for 2.7.x but that impact >> is much less as the audience for that installer is much smaller. > > Well, the question really is whether precompiled extension modules > available from PyPI would work on both compilers. I understand that > for OSX, you typically don't have precompiled binaries for the extension > modules, so installation compiles the modules from scratch. This is > easier, as it can use the ABI of the Python which will be installed > to. > > If you go the "parallel ABIs" route, extension authors have to provide > two parallel sets of packages as well. Given 32-bit and 64-bit packages, > this will make actually two additional packages - just as if they had > to support another Python version. As far as I know, stuff on OSX is generally built for “X compiler or later” so binary compatibility is kept as long as you’re using an “or later” but I could be wrong about that. Using binary packages on OSX is a much less frequent thing I think though since getting a working compiler toolchain is easier there. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140623/579f0a14/attachment.sig>
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