Closed RaulTrombin closed 1 year ago
Why we want 3.11 binds ? What is the problem with 3.9 ? They should be just binds, I can't see a reason for that. @patrickelectric Excentially because the alpine latest was using 3.11, but I've discovered this new feature: abi3-py39, which makes a single wheel for 3.9 and above. pyo3-features
Why we want 3.11 binds ? What is the problem with 3.9 ? They should be just binds, I can't see a reason for that. @patrickelectric Excentially because the alpine latest was using 3.11, but I've discovered this new feature: abi3-py39, which makes a single wheel for 3.9 and above. pyo3-features
Wait.. a 3.9 wheel wouldn't work with 3.11 Python, or, if we needed to use a newer feature, it'd just fail to generate a 3.9 wheel?
A 3.9 whl should work in 3.11 that's my point. What exactly is this fixing ?
it's possible now with the abi3, previously you needed to specify the python version.
For reference, if it's not clear, this PR is:
Add run-on-arch actions to python deployment, run-on-arch
To check if the packages install works on the corresponding architectures, now we have this process.
For manylinux we are using the bullseye image, which is the current blueos's raspbian base and python 3.9. For muslinux a minimal container using alpine, but it's using the python 3.11, need some future workaround to use 3.9 if needed.