Skip to content
Open
Changes from 13 commits
Commits
Show all changes
19 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
249 changes: 170 additions & 79 deletions peps/pep-0825.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -308,11 +308,17 @@ there MUST exist a corresponding ``{name}-{version}-variants.json``
file. The ``{name}`` and ``{version}`` placeholders correspond to the
package name and version, normalized according to the same rules as
wheel files, as found in the :ref:`packaging:wheel-file-name-spec` of
the Binary Distribution Format specification. The exact URL where the
file is hosted is insignificant, but a link to it MUST be present on all
index pages where the variant wheels are linked. It is presented in the
same simple repository format as source distribution and wheel links in
the index, including an (OPTIONAL) hash.
the Binary Distribution Format specification.

The exact URL where the file is hosted is insignificant, but it MUST
be provided in all the responses where the variant wheels are included.
It should follow the rules for files in the
:ref:`packaging:simple-repository-api`, except that the various metadata
served by the index (such as ``core-metadata``, ``dist-info-metadata``,
``requires-python`` or ``yanked``) are not meaningful for that file.
Indexes MAY publish or skip these attributes, as long as the values do
not prevent correct operation. Tools MAY either use or ignore these
values.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you're putting variant.json files in the files section of the JSON response, then you need to follow the existing rules, which say that for each files entry, filename, url, hashes and size are mandatory, and all other keys are optional. There's nothing in the existing spec that suggests that tools can ignore attributes if they are present, and I don't think we should be special-casing variant.json files.

I actually don't understand why you're allowing these fields to be present at all. What's wrong with simply saying that variant.json files must not include any of the optional fields defined in the index spec (with the exception of the upload-time field, which may be present)1?

Honestly, this feels like a problem caused by trying to put variant.json files into a field that's intended to hold details of distribution files. I'd argue that a cleaner design would be to have a separate variant-data field in the project details response2.

Footnotes

  1. I'm only making an exception for upload time because I can see cases where it might be useful, in analysing index data.

  2. The HTML version of the index would still need to have all the links together, but that should be viewed as secondary, as per PEP 833 (which is not yet approved, but is likely to be).

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, "optional fields" is what we meant. We'll correct this.

For the rest, see rationale. The goal is to support indexes during the transitional period with minimal modifications necessary. Should the tools be rejecting projects if the index gives unnecessary-yet-harmless fields?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Specifically note the provision:

Indexes MAY publish or skip these attributes, as long as the values do not prevent correct operation. Tools MAY either use or ignore these values.

This is intended as "you don't have to go out of your way to special case that one file", as long as you don't do something really wrong there.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, "optional fields" is what we meant. We'll correct this.

This was done in commit 2dbbf45. Other parts of the review comment seem answered.


This file uses the same structure as `variant metadata`_, except that
the ``variants`` object MUST list all variants available on the package
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -379,17 +385,20 @@ like:
Variant ordering
----------------

To determine which variant wheel to install when multiple wheels are
compatible, variants MUST be totally ordered by their variant
properties.
This specification defines an ordering between different wheels based on
the presence of variant metadata.

For the purpose of ordering, variant properties are grouped into
features, and features into namespaces. For every namespace, the tool
MUST obtain an ordered list of compatible features, and for every
feature, an ordered list of compatible values. The method of obtaining
these lists will be defined in a subsequent PEP.

The default ordering MUST be performed equivalent to the following
MUST obtain a list of compatible features, and for every feature, a list
of compatible values. The method of obtaining these lists will be
defined in a subsequent PEP. The items in these lists will be provided
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"The method of obtaining these lists is not defined (and hence is tool-specific)."

We should avoid making this PEP explicitly dependent on "future PEPs", as if we do so it's impossible to approve this PEP on its own merits.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't really see that contradiction, I think we have to live with some of that tension if we want to avoid having one massive PEP 817. There's other PEPs too which specifically leave gaps for future specifications, and I don't see that as fundamentally different. If we say it's tool-specific, that would be rather misleading, as we don't want to open up the namespace to everyone beyond experimentation, we have the expectation that in the end we'll have a compatibility standard where everyone speak the same language.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we have to live with some of that tension if we want to avoid having one massive PEP 817.

Agreed (although we have to accept that if the tension is too great, a single PEP 817 may be a better approach). The key here is that we have a way to implement PEP 825 in the absence of those other PEPs. If we can't start implementation work once PEP 825 is (provisionally) accepted, there's no point in accepting it independently. So regardless of what you might prefer, anything not specified in PEP 825 will be tool-defined. When the follow-up PEP XXX comes along, people who correctly guessed what it would say will be ready, and everyone else will have to change their implementation, but we can't know what the answer will be in advance. I'd rather we made it clear that's the situation, rather than having people think they can't start implementation work because parts of the behaviour need a further PEP to specify them.

There's other PEPs too which specifically leave gaps for future specifications

Maybe I'm getting too concerned about this. Can you give me some examples and I'll check how they handle the situation?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The whole point is that you can start the implementation (provided that you're ready to take the risk that the details will change). We say "subsequent PEP" in very specific places, telling you to leave specific gaps. Like "you can implement most of the sort algorithm, just leave the gap for functions that will provide these lists"; even the example below literally provides an implementation with gaps for these functions.

I don't think "guessing" really works here. I suppose you can infer what the implementation will be from PEP 817, or you can do your own thing. Whether this makes you PEP 825 compliant is unclear to me, since the PEP by design is part of the larger series, and therefore full compliance implies implementing all of them. A tool that implements PEP 825 but then diverges from subsequent PEPs does not really implement "variant wheels"; it implements a custom solution that is partially based on "variant wheels" but it is definitely not compliant with the design as a whole, and therefore it is not guaranteed to be interoperable.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK. Let me think about this some more. The idea was that we split PEP 817 into independent parts, but if it's simply not possible to make those parts independent, then maybe we're better accepting that and going back to the single unified approach with PEP 817. Or maybe this approach of having a series of PEPs that don't work independently, but which need to be accepted or rejected as a whole is the right approach - but I don't know of any prior occasions when this was done, so I'd need to do some research to decide how viable it is.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I personally think split PEPs are better, but rather than independent, building one on top of another. If anything, they are easier to read, and I found it easier to describe the concepts that way. It also keeps the discussion more focused.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just looked back at the PEP 817 discussion, where splitting the PEP was first discussed. At the time, I said:

I would strongly prefer that the mechanism for recording variant properties within wheels be separated out into its own PEP, leaving everything about how that data is used to other PEPs.

With that as context, I'll note that:

  1. Ordering is arguably about using the data, and could reasonably be removed from PEP 825, along with all of the discussion about selecting wheels.
  2. The index-level variant.json files, along with the need to merge those files from multiple sources, could reasonably be split into its own PEP - it is about how data is stored, but it's not fundamental, it's an optimisation (a necessary optimisation, because without the index-level data the mechanism would be too costly to be practical, but still an optimisation). If, on the other hand, you want to keep it here, I think you're going to have to tackle the issue of merging data from multiple sources, because that is part of "how the data is stored" if the index-level files are1. I'd prefer to keep this as part of this PEP, but I'd understand if you prefer not to tackle index merging right now.

That would leave PEP 825 as basically just a set of terminology definitions, a JSON data schema, a wheel naming convention and a definition of where the variant data is stored in the wheel. That, IMO, would be a good foundation, and should2 be uncontroversial.

It doesn't do anything to address the issues that are blocking us here, all it does is put them into their own PEPs. So I'd completely understand if you don't want to do that (writing more PEPs is more work). But if what matters to you is getting something approved sooner rather than later, then it might help with that.

If anything, they are easier to read

I agree 100% that smaller PEPs make understanding the proposal easier - in a sense, they are acting like chapters in a larger document. What I'm not sure about is whether it makes sense to approve individual PEPs from a series structured like that (given that you've said you can't make them completely independent). If you're OK with writing the various PEPs and having them all remain in Draft status until they are submitted as a group for approval, I'd have no problem with that. But I got the distinct impression that you want an early approval of at least part of the work, for motivational reasons if nothing else.

Would it help if I said formally that I support the idea of wheel variants, but until the full set of PEPs is available and the proposal has been discussed and is documented in its full form (across multiple PEPs) I won't be approving individual parts?

Footnotes

  1. If you have a set of wheels from 2 indexes, then "how the data is stored" is "in 2 files, one from each index", and "how do I access that data" involves combining the 2 files.

  2. Fingers crossed. Every time we've said that so far it's proved wrong. I hope I'm not jinxing things here!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"Ordering" is a bit of unclear fit indeed. I've included it in PEP 825 since it can be defined independently of actual data (with the minimal gaps for input), and I've figured out that the next PEP will be big enough to justify keeping it out of it. On the other hand, I suppose moving it later would have the advantage of giving more context why things were designed this way (not really relevant to specification but to rationale). That said, I'm not convinced that moving stuff at this point is really worth the effort.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that the data structure for ordering data is reasonable to include here, but manipulation of it (merging orderings, overriding, using it to select wheels) could be deferred. But I do agree that deferring just puts off the problem, it doesn't make it go away. So I'm happy to keep it here and address the issues now.

Also, as I noted on DPO, my thinking regarding the index-level files has changed somewhat. They are only an optimisation for the label->property mapping data. For ordering data, they aren't, because you don't define merging of ordering data from multiple sources. So a consumer can't go to the ordering data in the wheels, because they then can't merge that data, and so can't establish a single ordering for all of the wheels on the index.

As an aside, one point I'm not clear on - is it right that a project could legitimately provide no ordering data at all, relying solely on the default ordering that the providers give?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So I'm happy to keep it here and address the issues now.

This conversation seems resolved.

As an aside, one point I'm not clear on - is it right that a project could legitimately provide no ordering data at all, relying solely on the default ordering that the providers give?

@mgorny answered this here: default-priorities.namespace is required.

in specific order that will impact variant wheel ordering.

The compatible wheels corresponding to a particular combination of
package name, version and build number MUST be grouped by their variant
label, and a separate group of non-variant wheels MUST be formed. The
groups of variant wheels MUST then be ordered according to the following
algorithm:

1. Construct the ordered list of namespaces by copying the value of the
Expand All @@ -402,9 +411,10 @@ algorithm:
value of the respective ``default-priorities.feature.{namespace}``
key.
Comment thread
konstin marked this conversation as resolved.

ii. Obtain the compatible feature names, in order. For every feature
name that is not present in the constructed list, append it to
the end.
ii. Take the ordered list of compatible feature names obtained
previously and iterate over it, in order. For every feature name
that is not present in the constructed list, append it to the
end.

After this step, a list of ordered feature names is available for
every namespace. This is ``feature_order`` in the example.
Expand All @@ -415,48 +425,49 @@ algorithm:
of the respective
``default-priorities.property.{namespace}.{feature_name}`` key.
Comment thread
konstin marked this conversation as resolved.

ii. Obtain the compatible feature values, in order. For every value
that is not present in the constructed list, append it to the
end.
ii. Take the ordered list of compatible feature values obtained
previously and iterate over it, in order. For every value that is
not present in the constructed list, append it to the end.

After this step, a list of ordered property values is available for
every feature. This is ``value_order`` in the example.

4. For every compatible variant, determine the most preferred value
corresponding to every feature in that variant. This is done by
finding among the values present in the variant properties the one
that has the lowest position in the ordered property value list.
After this step, a list of features along with their best values
is available for every variant. This is done in the
``Variant.best_value_properties()`` method in the example.
4. For every group, determine the most preferred value corresponding to
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't understand this step. A group, as I understand it, is a set of wheels with the same variant label. So each wheel in a group has the same value for every property. So how can there be a "most preferred value" when there's only one value?

I suspect I'm misunderstanding here because the terminology still isn't clear to me. But I'm more concerned with making sure that the reader can follow what's being described than I am arguing about terms.

Or is this actually about trying to order the different groups, so you're trying to identify the most preferred group based on the values the labels denote?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See "variant properties". A single wheel can have multiple values corresponding to a single feature. You select the most preferred one from them for ordering.

If the wheel has:

nvidia :: sm_arch :: 120_real
nvidia :: sm_arch :: 110_real

you would sort only on:

nvidia :: sm_arch :: 120_real

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This question seems answered; the specification text seems fine. If a small rephrasing would have helped, a comment with the exact suggested rephrase could be applied. I'd say it's fine as is though; specification text doesn't get more clear by pre-emptively explaining questions like these (assuming the spec is indeed unambiguous, which it is here).

every variant feature present in the variant properties corresponding
to the group. This is done by finding among the values the one that
has the lowest position in the ordered property value list. After
this step, a list of features along with their best values is
available for every variant. This is done in the
``VariantWheel.best_value_properties()`` method in the example.

5. For every item in the list constructed in the previous step,
construct a sort key that is a 3-tuple consisting of
its namespace, feature name and best feature value indices in the
respective ordered lists. This is done by the ``property_key()``
function in the example.

6. For every compatible variant, sort the list constructed in step 4
using the sort keys constructed in step 5, in ascending order. This
is done by the ``Variant.sorted_properties()`` method in the example.
6. For every group, sort the list constructed in step 4 using the sort
keys constructed in step 5, in ascending order. This is done by the
``VariantWheel.sorted_properties()`` method in the example.

7. To order variants, compare their sorted lists from step 6. If the
sort keys at the first position are different, the variant with the
7. To order groups, compare their sorted lists from step 6. If the
sort keys at the first position are different, the group with the
lower key is sorted earlier. If they are the same, compare the keys
at the second position, and so on, until either a tie-breaker is
found or the list in one of the variants is exhausted. In the latter
case, the variant with more keys is sorted earlier. As a fallback,
if both variants have the same number of keys, they are ordered
lexically by their variant label, ascending. This is done by the
found or the list in one of the groups is exhausted. In the latter
case, the group with more keys is sorted earlier. As a fallback,
if both groups have the same number of keys, they are ordered
lexically by the variant label, ascending. This is done by the
ultimate step of the example algorithm, with the comparison function
being implemented as ``Variant.__lt__()``.
being implemented as ``VariantWheel.__lt__()``.

After this process, the variant wheels are sorted from the most
preferred to the least preferred. The algorithm sorts the null variant
after all the other variants. The non-variant wheel MUST be ordered
after the null variant. Multiple wheels with the same variant property
set (and multiple non-variant wheels) MUST then be ordered according to
their platform compatibility tags.
The algorithm sorts the group of null variant wheels last, as they
feature no variant properties. The group of non-variant wheels MUST be
placed after all the other groups.

Within every group, the wheels MUST then be ordered according to their
platform compatibility tags. After this process, the variant wheels are
sorted from the most preferred to the least preferred.

The tools MAY provide options to override the default ordering, for
example by specifying a preference for specific namespaces, features
Expand All @@ -465,7 +476,8 @@ variants, or to select a particular variant.

Alternatively, the sort algorithm for variant wheels could be described
using the following pseudocode. For simplicity, this code does not
account for non-variant wheels or tags.
account for non-variant wheels or the subsequent ordering by platform
compatibility tags.

.. code:: python

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -530,7 +542,7 @@ account for non-variant wheels or tags.
)


class Variant:
class VariantWheel:
"""Example class exposing properties of a variant wheel"""

label: str
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -571,13 +583,13 @@ account for non-variant wheels or tags.
return self.label < other.label


# A list of variants to sort.
variants: list[Variant] = [...]
# A list of variant wheels to sort.
variant_wheels: list[VariantWheel] = [...]


# 7. Order variants by comparing their sorted properties
# (see Variant.__lt__())
variants.sort()
# 7. Order variant wheels by comparing their sorted properties
# (see VariantWheel.__lt__())
variant_wheels.sort()


Environment markers
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -737,6 +749,10 @@ Note that steps 4. through 8. are introduced specifically for variant
wheels. The remaining steps correspond to the current installer
behavior.

When installing from a source that does not provide an `index-level
metadata`_, the same algorithm can be used, except that the variant
metadata needs to be read directly from the wheels.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This doesn't feel like it's true. If you have 2 wheels served from a local directory, with different variant.json files in the wheels, doesn't that put you in the same situation as if you had multiple indexes (which, as I note, the algorithm doesn't cover)?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a single source, so the same rules of consistency as in "index-level metadata" apply, and the same merging algorithm described there.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed, consistency rules apply.



Installing a local wheel
''''''''''''''''''''''''
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -786,28 +802,68 @@ To generate the ``{name}-{version}-variants.json`` file:
Rationale
=========

This PEP is part of a larger variant wheel design that was originally
proposed as :pep:`817`. However, due to its complexity, we decided to
split it into smaller parts that build one upon another. This PEP is the
first in the series, providing foundations including the file format
along with necessary metadata, index support and basic tool algorithms.
Aspects such as providing actual variant properties or building wheels
are deferred into subsequent PEPs.

Variant wheels use structured `variant properties`_ to express
multidimensional wheel compatibility matrices. For example, it permits
expressing that a single variant requires certain CPU and GPU features
independently. It can express both AND-style dependencies (such as
different CPU instruction sets) and OR-style dependencies (such as
different GPUs supported by a single package).
multidimensional wheel compatibility matrices. Properties are organized
in namespaces that can be defined and governed independently. The
key-value structure makes the properties more flexible: adding a new
compatibility axis can be done by adding a new key. It can support both
AND-style dependencies (for example, a CPU plugin could define multiple
keys corresponding to different instructions sets, all of which are used
in the package and therefore must be supported) and OR-style
dependencies (for example, a GPU plugin can define a single key listing
multiple GPU types, indicating that all of them are supported by the
package, and therefore the users needs to own only one of them).

The specification does not impose any formal limits on the number of
properties expressed, and specifically accounts for the possibility of
property sets being very long (for example, a long list of GPUs or CPU
extension sets). To avoid wheel filenames becoming very long, the
property lists are stored inside the wheel and mapped to a short label
that is intended to be human-readable.

To facilitate variant selection while installing from remote index,
the variant metadata is mirrored in a JSON file published on the index.
This enables installers to obtain variant property mapping without
having to fetch individual wheels.

Since JSON format does not feature a set type, sets are represented as
sorted lists. Sorting ensures that tools can safely use equality
comparison over dictionaries.
extension sets). To avoid wheel filenames becoming hard to comprehend
because of excess of information and potentially causing technical
issues because of their length, the property lists are stored inside
the wheel and mapped to a short label that is chosen by the package
maintainer and intended to be human-readable.

Wheel filenames alone do not provide sufficient metadata to drive
variant wheel selection. To avoid tools having to fetch the variant
metadata straight from multiple wheel files, the metadata from wheels
for every package version is combined and republished. This metadata is
scoped to a single package version to permit variants changing in the
future version.

The index support aims to account for three scenarios:

1. An index implementation that cannot embed additional metadata as part
of file list responses. For example, this covers installing straight
from a directory listing created by a webserver. To account for this
scenario, index-level metadata is published as a plain JSON file that
can be generated by the package maintainer and placed alongside
wheels.

2. An index implementation that has more complete wheel support but does
not wish to implement full variant wheel support immediately. The
index needs only to permit the user to upload said JSON file. To
account for minimalistic implementation, the specification permits
the index to treat said file similarly to a wheel, including
publishing attributes such as ``yanked``, as long as their values do
not prevent clients from working.

3. An index implementation that implements complete wheel variant
support. Such an index will parse uploaded variant wheels, and
dynamically create the index-level metadata. The JSON file path would
then be treated as an API endpoint rather than an actual file.

Since JSON format does not feature a set type, sets in the metadata are
represented as sorted lists. Sorting ensures reproducibility and makes
it possible to use equality comparison over whole dictionaries without
having to convert specific fields back to sets after deserialization.

The variant ordering algorithm has been proposed with the assumption
that variant properties take precedence over Platform compatibility
Expand All @@ -817,15 +873,25 @@ variant may require a different minimal libc version, in which case the
selection should be driven by the desired CUDA preference rather than
incidental platform tag difference.

While the provision of variant properties is deferred to a future PEP to
keep the specification easier to comprehend, a baseline assumption is
made that the compatible properties will be provided in specific order
corresponding to their preference, much like Platform compatibility tags
conventionally are. The variant metadata provides the ability to
override this order at package level. However, namespaces are unordered
by design (e.g. we will not decide upfront which GPU vendors take
precedence) and therefore they always need to be ordered by the package
maintainer.
While a future PEP will define how variant properties are provided, a
baseline assumption is made that the compatible properties will be
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This shouldn't be an assumption, it should be explicitly required in this PEP. Then this sentence can be reworded something along these lines:

This PEP simply requires that compatible properties are provided in a specific order corresponding to their preference. We do not state how tools will provide this ordered list, but a future PEP is planned which will standardise the mechanism.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't the rationale section be describing why were the specific decisions made in the specification part, rather than stating what is required (I.e. effectively repeating specification)? I dare say the "context" is the whole point of having a rationale in the first place.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, if you want to move this "baseline assumption" into the specification section as a requirement, that works for me.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But it literally does that, in the fragment you've commented on above:

The items in these lists will be provided in specific order that will impact variant wheel ordering.

We're merely trying to provide a bit more context of why this requirement is baked in there.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems resolved.

provided in specific order corresponding to their preference. This makes
it possible to use a generic sorting algorithm that, and later define
Comment thread
konstin marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
properties as data without having to change the algorithm.

A future PEP will define how the ordering for features and values is
provided. However, namespaces are governed independently and considered
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same here. You need to say what this PEP requires, so that tools can (in principle) implement their own mechanism for providing an ordering. The fact that we'll standardise that mechanism in a future PEP isn't important here, except as context.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same comment as higher up; this PEP requires default-priorities.namespace.

on equal footing, and therefore there will be no standard ordering for
them. Instead, the package maintainer will decide which namespaces have
Comment thread
konstin marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
higher priority, and therefore which variants will be preferred. For
completeness, the specification also permits the maintainers to override
the ordering for features and values as well. Tools can also further
override the variant choice, much like they can do with regular wheels.

In the vast majority of real use cases, ordering based on properties
will suffice. However, in a pathological case two different variant
wheels may end up with equal sort keys. To provide reproducible results
in this case, fallback sorting on variant label is performed.

A concept of null variant is introduced that is distinct from
non-variant wheels to facilitate a transition period. This variant is
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -938,7 +1004,7 @@ Reference Implementation
The `variantlib <https://github.com/wheelnext/variantlib>`__ project
contains a reference implementation of a complete variant wheel
solution. It is compliant with this PEP, but also goes beyond it,
providing example solutions to `open issues`_.
providing example solutions to some of deferred items.
Comment thread
konstin marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated

A client for installing variant wheels is implemented in a
`uv branch <https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/12203>`__.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -982,15 +1048,34 @@ would be incorrectly deemed compatible because of the
``manylinux_2_27_x86_64`` part.


Open Issues
===========
Replacing Platform compatibility tags entirely
----------------------------------------------

Technically, it would be entirely possible to convey the information
currently passed via the Platform compatibility tags via variant
properties, and remove these explicit tags from the filename. However,
we decided not to pursue this and instead preserve the existing
filenames for wheels that do not need additional variants, as we do not
believe that the effort required to update all the existing workflows
justifies the benefit of more compact, and slightly more consistent
naming.


Out of scope
------------

The following problems are deferred to subsequent PEPs:
The following problems are deferred to subsequent PEPs in the series:

- governance of variant namespaces
- determining which variant properties are compatible with the system
- building variant wheels

In addition to that, the following questions are left undefined:
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The question is well-defined, what you are saying is that you aren't going to answer the question.

Which means that this PEP doesn't support installation from multiple sources of wheels. I don't think that's an acceptable position to take, as installing from multiple sources is an extremely common scenario, and if this PEP doesn't support it, that's a significant usability problem.

IMO, what you need to do is identify all of the places in the PEP where having wheels from multiple sources would cause an issue (I've noted a few of them above) and explicitly state in those places that the PEP doesn't define behaviour in that situation1. That changes the position from "multiple indexes are out of scope" to "behaviour for multiple indexes is tool-defined".

Footnotes

  1. My gut feeling is that if you do that, the variant ordering algorithm will look a bit of a mess. If that's the case, then that's a good thing, honestly, as it will expose the fact that the PEP relies on some form of index ordering mechanism. Procedurally, that's a problem, as standardising an index ordering mechanism is a whole other can of worms. But I'd rather we faced that issue than simply ignoring it and ending up with a standard that can't be implemented properly by tools that don't support index priority.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Which means that this PEP doesn't support installation from multiple sources of wheels. I don't think that's an acceptable position to take, as installing from multiple sources is an extremely common scenario, and if this PEP doesn't support it, that's a significant usability problem.

We're specifically say "undefined", not "not supported". Tools can support multiple index in any shape they want, by virtue of the spec saying nothing about it.

That changes the position from "multiple indexes are out of scope" to "behaviour for multiple indexes is tool-defined".

Can you explain what the difference between those two is? Currently, there is no spec for multiple index support: Multiple indexes are out of scope in any other PEP, we're just writing it out explicitly because otherwise people complained about the absence of that, and it's still tool-defined, as tool make choices about multiple indexes right now, in the absence of a spec.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"Multiple indexes are out of scope" means that an implementation that doesn't allow multiple sources for variant wheels is PEP compliant. That seems to me like it would be a severe limitation on the usability of variants, especially as it would effectively disallow installing from a local directory of wheels (because in the absence of an index, each wheel is its own independent source of variant data).

On the other hand, "behaviour for multiple indexes is tool-defined" means that PEP-compliant implementations need to support multiple indexes/sources, but they get to choose the behaviour in those specific places where the PEP says that behaviour is undefined.

I appreciate that it's a subtle distinction, but IMO it's important. The precise wording doesn't matter to me, but the difference in semantics does.

Multiple indexes are out of scope in any other PEP

I don't know of any other PEP/standard where it matters whether multiple indexes are involved1. This PEP is different precisely because the ordering algorithm is described in terms that assume a single variant.json file is applicable to all wheels being considered, and that means it does matter if the wheels come from multiple places.

Footnotes

  1. If you're aware of any, please let me know and I'll check how they handle the situation.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you point us to a document explaining this difference?

I don't really understand how "tool-defined" implies that something has to be implemented. Isn't "reject as not supported" also a valid tool-defined behavior?

Also, does this mean that a tool that currently does not support multiple sources at all won't be able to be compliant with variant wheels without actually implementing support for multiple sources, i.e. something it currently didn't need to do when installing regular wheels?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, I can't point you to a document. This isn't a technical term with a precise definition, it's a matter of how the PEP reads to me. And by extension, how I believe it could be read in the future by others - I'm basing this on my experience with other standards where we've had problems after the fact because people have interpreted imprecise wording in a way that we hadn't originally intended.

I don't think this side discussion is helping. It's a minor point in isolation, and it's threatening to overwhelm the main issue I'm trying to draw attention to, which is that I don't see how we can simply ignore (or "leave to tool implementers" if you prefer) the question of how to calculate ordering when faced with multiple sources of information to combine. At the end of the day, the PEP will need to address this issue if it's going to be accepted. I've tried to read the ordering algorithm as described in the PEP multiple times now, and every time I've got stuck, usually because I can't work out how I'd generalise the given algorithm to handle multiple sources (something I expect to have to do for pip, where "pick the first index" isn't a valid option unless we can assume all indexes have the same data).

To be very explicit here (please don't take this as any sort of threat, it's not intended that way, but I do want to be sure there's no misunderstanding), I'm currently not seeing a way I can accept the PEP if it doesn't somehow clarify how tools are supposed to handle multiple sources. I'm trying to help fix that problem, but if my comments are having the opposite effect, I should probably just state the issue and leave it to you to decide how to take things forward.

The PEP doesn't say who the sponsor is (that's something that should be fixed, by the way), but I'd recommend you speak to them as well - they should be able to help navigate the process around incorporating feedback like this, if it's a problem.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The PEP doesn't say who the sponsor is (that's something that should be fixed, by the way), but I'd recommend you speak to them as well - they should be able to help navigate the process around incorporating feedback like this, if it's a problem.

A sponsor isn't needed here because Barry and Donald are co-authors and on the core team, so you can speak to them.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rgommers rgommers May 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be very explicit here (please don't take this as any sort of threat, it's not intended that way, but I do want to be sure there's no misunderstanding), I'm currently not seeing a way I can accept the PEP if it doesn't somehow clarify how tools are supposed to handle multiple sources

I'll post about this on Discourse, because it's a content/process discussion either way. This PR just contains clarifications which all seem ready to go, and address some questions and confusion.


- Selecting variant wheels from multiple sources. Currently, there is no
standard defined behavior for regular wheels, nor consensus across
different packaging tools on how to handle that.


Acknowledgements
================
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1036,6 +1121,12 @@ Change History
- Changed ``pylock.toml`` integration to inline variant metadata
rather than storing a URL and a hash.

- 11-May-2026

- Added replacing platform compatibility tags entirely to rejected
ideas.
- Clarified interpretation of sorting algorithm and index support.


Appendices
==========
Expand Down
Loading