-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 219
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Tracking issue for PEP 600 Perennial manylinux rollout #542
Comments
manylinux_x_y platform tag is official per PEP600 see also pypa/manylinux#542
manylinux_x_y platform tag is official per PEP600 see also pypa/manylinux#542
The PR against packaging to allow PEP 600 tags (pypa/packaging#293) has been merged, so once that percolates out to pip and wheel people could, theoretically, begin producing PEP600 wheels. |
Pip has been updated, setuptools and wheel still have not. |
A version of wheel with packaging as a dependency has been released. I guess the next step is to decide on the first PEP 600 format, create images, and adapt auditwheel to the image. I propose using glibc 2.24 via debian stretch, since that will push NumPy past these issues:
|
manylinux_x_y platform tag is official per PEP600 see also pypa/manylinux#542 Co-authored-by: Dustin Ingram <[email protected]>
I've merged pypi/warehouse#7853 (and checked the appropriate box here). |
Hi! Are there any updates on implementing PEP 600 and is there an ETA? edit: oops, at the end of the PEP I saw alpine and didn't realize that it was referring to rejected ideas :) |
PEP 600 motivation mentions:
so I don’t think this is related to Alpine (which is not always a good choice btw — https://pythonspeed.com/articles/alpine-docker-python/) |
I was confident that Error I'm getting in
The image uses debian 10 and an up-to-date
|
A new version of |
As mentioned in a previous comment, I started hacking something together to add While not directly on On production side, I made some stats on all latest release of projects producing
One thing to take into account is that I did not check the platform and this includes all platforms supported by That leaves roughly 40% of projects still using the This time, I did stats on downloads using
The first weird thing to notice is that there are quite a lot of With all of those number, my feeling is that more than 99.96% of the systems that are I'm now thinking of integrating the outdated |
Thanks for the deep analysis!! NumPy is planning to drop |
Thanks for the information. That's very useful to have that in mind. I probably won't bother to integrate the FYI, as
|
|
|
|
Edited the checklist to mention #999 |
Edited the checklist to mention matthew-brett/multibuild#396 |
Let's close this one. Given the shortcomings of manylinux_2_24, it probably won't get into dockcross. |
PEP 600 has been accepted to adopt the
manylinux_2_??
standard, we need a tracking issue for implementation (I'm reusing structure and prose from gh-338, maintainers : please edit this so it makes sense).I am pushing this forward so we can use a newer docker image for other architectures: the available arm64 compilers on CentOS 7 have a bug with copysign xref gh-494 and the glibc 2.18 versions of transcendental functions have bugs, the NumPy work-arounds are based on
long double
but ppc64 usesdouble double
xref numpy/numpy#15763. Moving to an image based on glibc2.24 (debian stretch, centos8 uses 2.28) will help move the goalposts on these issues.Client-side Support:
Publisher-side Support:
Documentation:
Additional projects to consider once core capability support has rolled out:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: