manylinux upgrade for numpy wheels

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

manylinux upgrade for numpy wheels

Charles R Harris
Hi All,

Thought now would be a good time to decide on upgrading manylinux for the 1.19 release so that we can make sure that everything works as expected. The choices are
 
manylinux1 -- CentOS 5, currently used, gcc 4.2 (in practice 4.5), only supports i686, x86_64.
manylinux2010 -- CentOS 6, gcc 4.5, only supports i686, x86_64.
manylinux2014 -- CentOS 7, gcc 4.8, supports many more architectures.

The main advantage of manylinux2014 is that it supports many new architectures, some of which we are already testing against. The main disadvantage is that it requires pip >= 19.x, which may not be much of a problem 4 months from now but will undoubtedly cause some installation problems. Unfortunately, the compiler remains archaic, but folks interested in performance should be using a performance oriented distribution or compiling for their native architecture.

Chuck


_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: manylinux upgrade for numpy wheels

Nathaniel Smith
Pretty sure the 2010 and 2014 images both have much newer compilers than that.

There are still a lot of users on CentOS 6, so I'd still stick to 2010 for now on x86_64 at least. We could potentially start adding 2014 wheels for the other platforms where we currently don't ship wheels – gotta be better than nothing, right?

There probably still is some tail of end users whose pip is too old to know about 2010 wheels. I don't know how big that tail is. If we wanted to be really careful, we could ship both manylinux1 and manylinux2010 wheels for a bit – pip will automatically pick the latest one it recognizes – and see what the download numbers look like.

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020, 13:18 Charles R Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All,

Thought now would be a good time to decide on upgrading manylinux for the 1.19 release so that we can make sure that everything works as expected. The choices are
 
manylinux1 -- CentOS 5, currently used, gcc 4.2 (in practice 4.5), only supports i686, x86_64.
manylinux2010 -- CentOS 6, gcc 4.5, only supports i686, x86_64.
manylinux2014 -- CentOS 7, gcc 4.8, supports many more architectures.

The main advantage of manylinux2014 is that it supports many new architectures, some of which we are already testing against. The main disadvantage is that it requires pip >= 19.x, which may not be much of a problem 4 months from now but will undoubtedly cause some installation problems. Unfortunately, the compiler remains archaic, but folks interested in performance should be using a performance oriented distribution or compiling for their native architecture.

Chuck

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: manylinux upgrade for numpy wheels

Matthew Brett
Hi,

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:38 PM Nathaniel Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Pretty sure the 2010 and 2014 images both have much newer compilers than that.
>
> There are still a lot of users on CentOS 6, so I'd still stick to 2010 for now on x86_64 at least. We could potentially start adding 2014 wheels for the other platforms where we currently don't ship wheels – gotta be better than nothing, right?
>
> There probably still is some tail of end users whose pip is too old to know about 2010 wheels. I don't know how big that tail is. If we wanted to be really careful, we could ship both manylinux1 and manylinux2010 wheels for a bit – pip will automatically pick the latest one it recognizes – and see what the download numbers look like.

That all sounds right to me too.

Cheers,

Matthew

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020, 13:18 Charles R Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Thought now would be a good time to decide on upgrading manylinux for the 1.19 release so that we can make sure that everything works as expected. The choices are
>>
>> manylinux1 -- CentOS 5, currently used, gcc 4.2 (in practice 4.5), only supports i686, x86_64.
>> manylinux2010 -- CentOS 6, gcc 4.5, only supports i686, x86_64.
>> manylinux2014 -- CentOS 7, gcc 4.8, supports many more architectures.
>>
>> The main advantage of manylinux2014 is that it supports many new architectures, some of which we are already testing against. The main disadvantage is that it requires pip >= 19.x, which may not be much of a problem 4 months from now but will undoubtedly cause some installation problems. Unfortunately, the compiler remains archaic, but folks interested in performance should be using a performance oriented distribution or compiling for their native architecture.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: manylinux upgrade for numpy wheels

Neal Becker
Slightly off topic perhaps, it is recommended to perform custom compilation for best performance, yet is there an
easy way to do this?  I don't think a simple pip will do.

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:07 AM Matthew Brett <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:38 PM Nathaniel Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Pretty sure the 2010 and 2014 images both have much newer compilers than that.
>
> There are still a lot of users on CentOS 6, so I'd still stick to 2010 for now on x86_64 at least. We could potentially start adding 2014 wheels for the other platforms where we currently don't ship wheels – gotta be better than nothing, right?
>
> There probably still is some tail of end users whose pip is too old to know about 2010 wheels. I don't know how big that tail is. If we wanted to be really careful, we could ship both manylinux1 and manylinux2010 wheels for a bit – pip will automatically pick the latest one it recognizes – and see what the download numbers look like.

That all sounds right to me too.

Cheers,

Matthew

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020, 13:18 Charles R Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Thought now would be a good time to decide on upgrading manylinux for the 1.19 release so that we can make sure that everything works as expected. The choices are
>>
>> manylinux1 -- CentOS 5, currently used, gcc 4.2 (in practice 4.5), only supports i686, x86_64.
>> manylinux2010 -- CentOS 6, gcc 4.5, only supports i686, x86_64.
>> manylinux2014 -- CentOS 7, gcc 4.8, supports many more architectures.
>>
>> The main advantage of manylinux2014 is that it supports many new architectures, some of which we are already testing against. The main disadvantage is that it requires pip >= 19.x, which may not be much of a problem 4 months from now but will undoubtedly cause some installation problems. Unfortunately, the compiler remains archaic, but folks interested in performance should be using a performance oriented distribution or compiling for their native architecture.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


--
Those who don't understand recursion are doomed to repeat it

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: manylinux upgrade for numpy wheels

Aldcroft, Thomas
In reply to this post by Nathaniel Smith
Our organization is still using CentOS-6, so my vote is for that.

Thanks,
Tom

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:38 PM Nathaniel Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pretty sure the 2010 and 2014 images both have much newer compilers than that.

There are still a lot of users on CentOS 6, so I'd still stick to 2010 for now on x86_64 at least. We could potentially start adding 2014 wheels for the other platforms where we currently don't ship wheels – gotta be better than nothing, right?

There probably still is some tail of end users whose pip is too old to know about 2010 wheels. I don't know how big that tail is. If we wanted to be really careful, we could ship both manylinux1 and manylinux2010 wheels for a bit – pip will automatically pick the latest one it recognizes – and see what the download numbers look like.

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020, 13:18 Charles R Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All,

Thought now would be a good time to decide on upgrading manylinux for the 1.19 release so that we can make sure that everything works as expected. The choices are
 
manylinux1 -- CentOS 5, currently used, gcc 4.2 (in practice 4.5), only supports i686, x86_64.
manylinux2010 -- CentOS 6, gcc 4.5, only supports i686, x86_64.
manylinux2014 -- CentOS 7, gcc 4.8, supports many more architectures.

The main advantage of manylinux2014 is that it supports many new architectures, some of which we are already testing against. The main disadvantage is that it requires pip >= 19.x, which may not be much of a problem 4 months from now but will undoubtedly cause some installation problems. Unfortunately, the compiler remains archaic, but folks interested in performance should be using a performance oriented distribution or compiling for their native architecture.

Chuck

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion