Write CEP about virtual packages #103
Conversation
cep-????.md
Outdated
| - Python's `os.confstr("CS_GNU_LIBC_VERSION")` | ||
| - `getconf GNU_LIBC_VERSION` | ||
| - `ldd --version` (in GLIBC distros) | ||
| - System's `libc.so` (in MUSL distros, location not standardized) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Think MUSL should be its own thing. It is versioned differently. Plus users presumably want to distinguish GLIBC built packages from MUSL ones
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With the stdlib infrastructure, we have the technical requirements in place to do something like:
c_stdlib: # [linux]
- sysroot # [linux]
- musl # [linux]
c_stdlib_version: # [linux]
- 2.17 # [linux]
- 1.2 # [linux]
zip_keys: # [linux]
- - c_stdlib # [linux]
- c_stdlib_version # [linux]Whether we want to roll out a "conda-forge for musl" is of course a separate question.
For the purpose of this CEP, definitely __glibc needs to stay musl-free IMO. For future-proofing, we could add __musl, but no strong feelings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the GLIBC version in MUSL distros, not the MUSL version itself. Happy to adjust the wording though. See this block in the constructor SH templates for some more context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Having glibc in musl is certainly not the default, I actually didn't know this is supported - TIL. In that case I agree it makes sense to report the glibc that's found.
So my point was that we could also build musl-native libs, but I guess that's much less urgent if alpine-users can just install a glibc compat (assuming this works with our glibc-flavoured packages).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reading the original comment ( conda/constructor#850 (comment) ), think that user is referring to gcompat:
...a library which provides glibc-compatible APIs for use on musl libc systems.
While that can be useful, think we should not encode that in this CEP
It may make sense to have a CEP extending this for MUSL (perhaps including gcompat) and this could be one detail we include there, but would suggest we leave it out of this version and save it as future work
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that user is referring to gcompat:
I'm not sure the original report was about gcompat, but about this alpine-focused glibc version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The challenge is if we include this line (even as an example) future readers will look at this line and say "Hey that is how they said we should be supporting MUSL." Even if that is not what we meant. So taking this line out is safer than keep it IMO
The rest of the examples above seem fine
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jakirkham: think that user is referring to
gcompat:
Look at the alpine wiki link I posted:
[wiki] If you want to run glibc programs in Alpine Linux, there are a few ways of doing so.
gcompat is one of them, but there are others.
@jakirkham: future readers will look at this line and say "Hey that is how they said we should be supporting MUSL."
I don't think that's realistic; it's also easy to preempt - just say "the version of glibc, if present (musl-based distros like alpine only provide this for compatibility; their main C library is musl itself)"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry Axel think we had posted around the same time. Agree there can be other ways people try to handle this need
To loop back to Jaime's original point on how to word this, what if we just say the following
| - System's `libc.so` (in MUSL distros, location not standardized) | |
| - System's GNU `libc.so` (see specific disto for location) |
Note: Some distros put libc.so in different places. So this is worth stating in its own right
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I reworded these paragraphs a bit including the intent of the suggestions, let me know what you think!
Co-authored-by: jakirkham <jakirkham@gmail.com>
cep-????.md
Outdated
| - Generic: `x86_64_v1`, `x86_64_v2`, `x86_64_v3`, `x86_64_v4`, `arm`, `ppc`... | ||
| - Apple: For M1, the value is `m1`. M2 and M3 are reported as `m2` and `m3`, respectively. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Im not sure I understand this part. x86_64_v1, m1 etc are also part of archspec and are also properly detected as such.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I reworded this section a bit. Does that help? Otherwise I'll need more details to understand the question. Thanks!
| | `zos-z` | `0` | | ||
| | Any other value | `0` | | ||
|
|
||
| The build string MUST be overridable with the `CONDA_OVERRIDE_ARCHSPEC` environment variable, if set to a non-empty value. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are using MUST here but use MAY in the top level section about environment variables.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, the general section covers all cases (and some virtual packages are not overridable), so we can only use MAY there. Then we go case-by-case specifying the MUST parts. Happy to reword for clarity if needed, though.
| This virtual package MUST be present when the system exhibits GPU drivers compatible with the CUDA runtimes. When available, the version value MUST be set to the oldest CUDA version supported by the detected drivers (i.e. the formatted value of `libcuda.cuDriverGetVersion()`), constrained to the first two components (major and minor) and formatted as `{major}.{minor}`. The build string MUST be `0`. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cuDriverGetVersion returns the version of the installed driver, not the oldest CUDA version supported by the detected drivers. Due to backwards compatibility support newer drivers also support older versions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this returns the CUDA version as seen by the driver. The docs are not super clear. There's also cudaRuntimeGetVersionAt least this is what conda/conda uses.
@jakirkham could you help clarify this? Thanks!
cep-????.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| The version MUST be overridable with the `CONDA_OVERRIDE_GLIBC` environment variable, if set to a non-empty value. | ||
|
|
||
| If the GNU `libc` version could not be estimated (e.g. the tool is not running on Linux), the tool SHOULD provide a default value (e.g. `2.17`) and inform the user of that choice and its possible overrides; e.g. via `CONDA_OVERRIDE_GLIBC`, a CLI flag or a configuration file. The environment variable MUST be ignored when the target platform is not `linux~-*`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should there be a difference between gnu libc not being present and the version not being parsable? I think conda should also be able to run on systems without glibc if packages dont require it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe. What would be the expected behaviour? Something like this?
- Not found:
__glibcdoes not show up. - Not parsable:
__glibc=0+ warning/advice to override.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I reworded this section a bit now so let's take another look.
cep-????.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| #### `__win` | ||
|
|
||
| This virtual package MUST be present when the target platform is `win-*`. The version MUST be set to the first three numeric components of the Windows build version, formatted as `{major}.{minor}.{build}`. If the version cannot be estimated (e.g. because the target platform does not match the native platform), the fallback value MUST be set to `0`. The build string MUST be `0`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not currently the case for any installer (conda, mamba, pixi) right? I think all of them report __win=0=0 at the moment.
Im all for this change though!
Edit: mamba does seem to report the windows version properly:
> pixi exec mamba info
...
virtual packages : __win=10.0.26100=0
> pixi exec conda info
...
virtual packages : __win=0=0
> pixi info
...
Virtual packages: __win=0=0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Exactly! This is what triggered the CEP: we will need to extend what mamba does to the full ecosystem soon due to some Windows deprecations in the boost library. See referenced issues in the text for more details.
Co-authored-by: jakirkham <jakirkham@gmail.com>
|
I reworked some sections:
|
cep-????.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| The build string MUST reflect one of: | ||
|
|
||
| - The detected CPU microarchitecture when the target platform matches the native platform, as specified in the [`archspec/archspec-json` database](https://github.com/archspec/archspec-json/blob/v0.2.5/cpu/microarchitectures.json). For Apple Silicon, the reported values MUST correspond to the `vendor == Apple` entries; e.g. `m1`, `m2`, etc. For any other vendors, the reported values MUST correspond to the `vendor == generic` entries; e.g. `x86_64_v1`, `x86_64_v2`, `x86_64_v3`, `x86_64_v4`, `arm`, `ppc`, etc. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why should it correspond to vendor == generic? It's not the current behaviour in conda nor is it desired.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's so far what I had observed in my Windows cloud machine, but maybe that's because archspec could not identify the actual CPU?
Reading the used function, that might be indeed the case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we just say "whatever archspec.cpu.detect.host() does"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let me know if you find the latest edits acceptable 🙏
|
|
||
| > The macOS version can be obtained via: | ||
| > | ||
| > - Python's `platform.mac_ver()[0]` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will return the SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT version if the Python interpreter running the command was built against the 10.15 SDK or earlier.
See https://eclecticlight.co/2020/08/13/macos-version-numbering-isnt-so-simple/ for details.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AFAICR, if you start the Python interpreter with SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT=0 it returns the 11.x based version, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, running setting the environment variable will return a >=11 version.
My main concern here the "MUST NOT" language around the SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT workaround. I agree with the idea but this is not the case for the current version of conda (see conda/conda#13832). The example an this issue still reports a 10.16 version for __osx. Changing this to "SHOULD" would be reasonable, especially given that there are many releases of tools/packages that will report the compatible version that already exist.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we could consider that a bug in conda and submit a fix for 25.1 (as we are doing for __win). I can survey public repodata for __osx usage in the wild if that helps inform this decision.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - `__unix` | ||
| - `__win` | ||
|
|
||
| #### `__archspec` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The microarch-level packages in conda-forge depend on __archspec to provide microarchitecture-level (e.g. x86-64-v2) meta-packages.
|
|
||
| #### `__unix` | ||
|
|
||
| This virtual package MUST be present when the target platform is `linux-*`, `osx-*` or `freebsd-*`. The version and build string fields MUST be set to `0`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than list the specific target platforms now and having to adjust this CEP if/when new platforms are adopted, I would suggest language like "when the target platform is sufficiently POSIX-y" and list the attributes necessary for that to be true (e.g., uses / for path delimiters, supports fork(3), etc.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm going to need some help or references to compile that list 😬
|
|
||
| #### `__linux` | ||
|
|
||
| This virtual package MUST be present when the target platform is `linux-*`. Its version value MUST be set to the Linux kernel version, constrained to the first two to four numeric components formatted as `{major}.{minor}.{micro}.{patch}`. If the version cannot be estimated (e.g. because the native platform is not Linux), the tool MUST set `version` to a fallback value of its choice. The build string MUST be `0`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Linux kernel upstream only defines {major}.{minor}.{micro}; anything beyond that (including the {patch} component you wrote) is part of the distribution kernel's version string. I don't think conda tooling should expose those components since their semantics of those will vary from distribution to distributon; e.g., patch 42 on Fedora may differ from patch 42 on Ubuntu.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, this contradicts this comment in conda/conda. I'm happy to trim to three fields, but we'll need a source.
|
|
||
| This virtual package MUST be present when the native and target platforms are both the same type of `linux-*` and GNU `libc` is installed in the system. The version value MUST be set to the system GNU `libc` version, constrained to the first two components (major and minor) formatted as `{major}.{minor}`. If the version cannot be estimated, the tool MUST set the version to a default value (e.g. `2.17`). | ||
|
|
||
| If the native platform does not match the target platform, the tool MAY export `__glibc` with its `version` field set to a default value (e.g. `2.17`) of its choice. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we provide some guidance here on how the default value should be selected? If we don't, I could see situations arising where two different conda install tools or two different versions of the same install tool provide different default values on the same system.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
conda/condasets it to2.5(yes, I know).- Pixi chose 2.28.
- Mamba skips it.
|
|
||
| #### `__glibc` | ||
|
|
||
| This virtual package MUST NOT be present if the target platform is not `linux-*`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"...if the target platform's C standard library is not the GNU C Library". Not sure if we codify the assumption of all Linux systems inherently provide GNU libc or that only Linux uses GNU libc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Current conda implementation assumes the latter "only Linux uses GNU libc". See https://github.com/conda/conda/blob/e74a2b9d8a74837afc3bcbef609fe4bd29572e16/conda/plugins/virtual_packages/linux.py#L14-L16.
If that's incorrect, (1) we need to fix that in conda/conda, and (2) I will update this paragraph.
| - `__unix` | ||
| - `__win` | ||
|
|
||
| #### `__archspec` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we aware of any existing packages that actually depend on __archspec?
If not, I would rather we not make this virtual package mandatory at this time, mostly because "what microarchitecture is this CPU?" is a question that can get complicated quickly; see, e.g., ARM big.LITTLE, Intel P/E cores, Intel Xeon 6, etc. To me, this virtual package is still (pseudo-)experimental, in the sense that we still need to work out how package maintainers should/want to use this package. IMO, __archspec should be its own CEP or set of CEPs (cf. #59).
Motivated by this request: conda/conda#14443.