Skip to content
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

Impending release of gmpy2 2.2.0a2 #462

Closed
casevh opened this issue Dec 19, 2023 · 10 comments · Fixed by #499
Closed

Impending release of gmpy2 2.2.0a2 #462

casevh opened this issue Dec 19, 2023 · 10 comments · Fixed by #499

Comments

@casevh
Copy link
Collaborator

casevh commented Dec 19, 2023

I would like to release version 2.2.0a2 tomorrow. I have tagged the 2.2.0a2 code and uploaded a subset of the binary wheels to

https://github.com/aleaxit/gmpy/releases/tag/gmpy2-2.2.0a2

Please test any of the subset of the binary wheels if you can.

@skirpichev
Copy link
Contributor

You forgot to include header files (gmp.h, etc), as it was promised in #352 (comment)

@casevh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

casevh commented Dec 20, 2023

They are included in the Windows wheels (barring symlink corruption). #352 is related to building in the WIndows environment.

I am against supporting Cython extensions that link against gmpy2 binary wheels on Linux. Both gmpy2 and the Cython extensions should be compiled against OS provided libraries. See #447 (comment) for more details.

@skirpichev
Copy link
Contributor

I am against supporting Cython extensions that link against gmpy2 binary wheels on Linux.

Then we should wipe all cython-related files from binary wheels and adjust documentation.

@casevh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

casevh commented Dec 20, 2023

See #447 (comment)

Using Linux as an example...

Could we figure out a way to make a Linux Cython extension always see the same name-mangled libraries during a gmpy2 release cycle? Even if that means caching those version on github like I'm doing for Windows.

We need a different name (to avoid clashes) but we also need a consistent name.

That I could support.

@isuruf
Copy link
Contributor

isuruf commented Dec 20, 2023

Scipy recently pacakged openblas as a separate wheel. See https://pypi.org/project/scipy-openblas64/
Maybe we can do the same here.

@casevh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

casevh commented Dec 20, 2023

I like it!

@rgommers
Copy link

Scipy recently pacakged openblas as a separate wheel. See https://pypi.org/project/scipy-openblas64/
Maybe we can do the same here.

I'll note that SciPy uses those wheels for local development and in CI, but in the released wheels is still vendoring OpenBLAS. The problem we still have with relying on separate binary wheels is that Python packaging standards prescribe that the wheels of your package cannot have a build or runtime dependency that the sdist doesn't also have. And since we cannot add scipy-openblas32 as a dependency to an sdist (this isn't correct for an sdist, and it would break building with --no-binary :all:), this is a blocker for now.

@tobiasdiez
Copy link

Thanks for your work on the new release ❤️

Is there a time line for the 2.2 release? It is needed to get Python 3.12 support (in a couple of downstream packages like sage).

@skirpichev
Copy link
Contributor

@casevh, probably this could be closed?

2.2.0a2 is available on the Github releases page, with some binary wheels included. But it's missing on PyPI.

@hartwork
Copy link

2.2.0a2 is available on the Github releases page, with some binary wheels included. But it's missing on PyPI.

CC #476

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants