Author lemburg
Recipients Arfrever, barry, brett.cannon, doko, eric.snow, lemburg, ncoghlan, ned.deily, pitrou, python-dev, steve.dower, tim.golden, zach.ware
Date 2015-04-16.16:17:08
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
On 16.04.2015 18:12, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I can tell you exactly where these files need to live side by side: index servers. We currently paper over it on PyPI for Windows and Mac OS X by leveraging the implicitly defined ABI compatibility of the CPython binary releases published on, but that starts to break down as soon as people are using interpreter binaries built locally or by redistributors rather than by the CPython core development team. There's more to the computing world than Intel CPU architectures, and more kernel APIs than Linux, Darwin and Windows.

But that's a completely different use case than what's being
addressed in this ticket:

This ticket is about C extension files, not packages or custom
Python interpreter binary names.

For packages, I agree, we would benefit from a more standardized ABI
naming scheme that what setuptools or distutils currently have to offer.
Date User Action Args
2015-04-16 16:17:08lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, barry, brett.cannon, doko, ncoghlan, pitrou, tim.golden, ned.deily, Arfrever, python-dev, eric.snow, zach.ware, steve.dower
2015-04-16 16:17:08lemburglinkissue22980 messages
2015-04-16 16:17:08lemburgcreate