Re: PEP 384 (was Re: Bits from dh_python2 author ;-)
[Barry Warsaw, 2010-05-28]
> On May 16, 2010, at 02:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
> >What's missing to have full PEP3147 support?
> >* PEP 384 implementation (will allow us to share (most?) .so files)
>
> I have a concern about this.
>
> While I understand the motivation, I'm not sure implementing PEP 384 will have
> any practical help in any kind of reasonable time frame. The reason being,
> that I think it's highly unlikely existing extension modules will be rewritten
> to use the ABI, or if they do, it will be a long time coming.
there has to be done something, we cannot use
/usr/lib/python3.X/dist-packages for extensions as it will break
namespace (unless we'll add it via new .pth).
[...]
> Matthias has also suggested getting the ABI version number in the .so filename
> and making the dynamic loader more intelligent. Kind of like a PEP 3147 for
> shared libraries. That would still mean we'd need to ship multiple .so's for
> every supported Python, so we'd lose the disk space/bandwidth advantage, but
> it might make for less hacky solutions to finding the right .so to load.
the problem is every time I mention "SONAME" on any Python related
channel, they tell me to go away ;-)
> I don't know. I'm skeptical that PEP 384 is worth the effort, but I'm open to
> other opinions.
versioning .so files is a good idea, IMHO
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
Reply to: