[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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100528111511.gg31...@piotro.eu
