PEP 783: Emscripten packaging

[hoodmane]

cc @pfmoore.

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

• Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
• File created from the latest PEP template
• PEP has next available number, & set in filename (pep-NNNN.rst), PR title (PEP 123: <Title of PEP>) and PEP header
• Title clearly, accurately and concisely describes the content in 79 characters or less
• Core dev/PEP editor listed as Author or Sponsor, and formally confirmed their approval
• Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
• PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate
• Required sections included
  • Abstract (first section)
  • Copyright (last section; exact wording from template required)
• Code is well-formatted (PEP 7/PEP 8) and is in code blocks, with the right lexer names if non-Python
• PEP builds with no warnings, pre-commit checks pass and content displays as intended in the rendered HTML
• Authors/sponsor added to .github/CODEOWNERS for the PEP

Standards Track requirements

• PEP topic discussed in a suitable venue with general agreement that a PEP is appropriate
• Suggested sections included (unless not applicable)
  • Motivation
  • Rationale
  • Specification
  • Backwards Compatibility
  • Security Implications
  • How to Teach This
  • Reference Implementation
  • Rejected Ideas
  • Open Issues
• Python-Version set to valid (pre-beta) future Python version, if relevant
• Any project stated in the PEP as supporting/endorsing/benefiting from the PEP formally confirmed such
• Right before or after initial merging, PEP discussion thread created and linked to in Discussions-To and Post-History

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4328.org.readthedocs.build/

[AA-Turner]

Brief review:

[freakboy3742]

Should this reference PEP 776 as the specification for the platform being packaged?

[AA-Turner]

Perhaps use the Requires header?

[freakboy3742]

That may be desirable as well for metadata purposes - but I was thinking more of an in-text reference.

[freakboy3742]

It feels like there's a missing piece in this specification - the analog of PEP 600.

PEP 600 specifies a general scheme for ongoing manylinux wheel tags; but that general scheme is predicated on a clear specification for the "anchoring" ABI - a glibc version.

This specification describes the format for a rolling pyodide_<abi> scheme, but doesn't seem as clear (to me) on how a new version of that specification will be chosen/published. I'm guessing the answer is "it's whatever Pyodide says it is" - which I can see as one way to address my previously raised concerns about Pyodide as a "downstream" specification - but it seems to me that we need a more concrete understanding of exactly how/where the rolling part of the tag will be specified by that downstream specification.

Ideally, that would be a reference to a formal specification (the analog of PEPs but for Pyodide); but even if it were a "code as specification" definition (e.g., whatever pyodide build --abi generates), it would fill the missing gap here.

[hoodmane]

@freakboy3742 I added a description of the ABI here:
pyodide/pyodide#5565
Would you be willing to review that?

[freakboy3742]

I've just done a review of that document. Functionally, I think it's capturing the sort of details that this PEP could refer to; most of my comments relate to how the information provided could be presented to make the specific compliance requirements easier to extract.

[AA-Turner]

In future, please only open such threads when the PR has been merged / is about to be merged -- the RtD preview links are temporary, and review can lead to changes in the PEP, meaning the wider audience has an outdated understanding of the text.

We try to put this across in the PR template, but we could strengthen the wording!

A

[hoodmane]

Ah sorry. I opened the thread primarily because I wanted the ci to be green. I figured I could edit the link in the post to point to the merged version when the pr lands.

[hoodmane]

The "Check PEPs" validation error I got reads to me like a direct instruction to go create a discussion thread, so I didn't read anything else before making it:

Discussions-To must be a valid thread URL or mailing list