Author lemburg
Recipients Arfrever, barry, brett.cannon, eric.snow, lemburg, ncoghlan, ned.deily, pitrou, steve.dower, tim.golden, vstinner, zach.ware
Date 2014-12-02.18:42:07
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <547E07FA.80909@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <1417543333.2.0.0650717576383.issue22980@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On 02.12.2014 19:02, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Sticking to bitness should be easy (although I wonder if it would be desirable for platforms with fat binaries - Ned?). If we can go the extra mile and include platform identification all the better, of course.

I hear the "can of worms" alarm ringing :-)

Seriously, I think that putting platform infos into the file name
is bound to cause more trouble than it tries to solve. Fat builds
leave the decision to the linker, which is a good method and avoids
the file name clashes.

I think we should only focus on platforms where fat builds are
uncommon, while at the same time you do have to support multiple
architectures, like e.g. Windows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_binary

Note that on Linux, 32-bit and 64-bit versions are typically placed
into different directory trees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard

so I'm not sure whether it's a real problem on Linux.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-12-02 18:42:07lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, barry, brett.cannon, ncoghlan, pitrou, vstinner, tim.golden, ned.deily, Arfrever, eric.snow, zach.ware, steve.dower
2014-12-02 18:42:07lemburglinkissue22980 messages
2014-12-02 18:42:07lemburgcreate