PEP 513 – A Platform Tag for Portable Linux Built Distributions
- Robert T. McGibbon <rmcgibbo at gmail.com>, Nathaniel J. Smith <njs at pobox.com>
- Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
- Distutils-SIG list
- 19-Jan-2016, 25-Jan-2016, 29-Jan-2016
- Distutils-SIG message
Table of Contents
- Key Causes of Inter-Linux Binary Incompatibility
- Compilation of Compliant Wheels
- Bundled Wheels on Linux
- Platform Detection for Installers
- PyPI Support
- Rejected Alternatives
- Future updates
This PEP proposes the creation of a new platform tag for Python package built
distributions, such as wheels, called
external dependencies limited to a standardized, restricted subset of
the Linux kernel and core userspace ABI. It proposes that PyPI support
uploading and distributing wheels with this platform tag, and that
support downloading and installing these packages on compatible platforms.
Currently, distribution of binary Python extensions for Windows and OS X is
straightforward. Developers and packagers build wheels (PEP 427, PEP 491),
assigned platform tags such as
macosx_10_6_intel, and upload
these wheels to PyPI. Users can download and install these wheels using tools
For Linux, the situation is much more delicate. In general, compiled Python extension modules built on one Linux distribution will not work on other Linux distributions, or even on different machines running the same Linux distribution with different system libraries installed.
Build tools using PEP 425 platform tags do not track information about the
particular Linux distribution or installed system libraries, and instead assign
all wheels the too-vague
linux_x86_64 tags. Because of
this ambiguity, there is no expectation that
distributions compiled on one machine will work properly on another, and for
this reason, PyPI has not permitted the uploading of wheels for Linux.
It would be ideal if wheel packages could be compiled that would work on any linux system. But, because of the incredible diversity of Linux systems – from PCs to Android to embedded systems with custom libcs – this cannot be guaranteed in general.
Instead, we define a standard subset of the kernel+core userspace ABI that, in practice, is compatible enough that packages conforming to this standard will work on many linux systems, including essentially all of the desktop and server distributions in common use. We know this because there are companies who have been distributing such widely-portable pre-compiled Python extension modules for Linux – e.g. Enthought with Canopy  and Continuum Analytics with Anaconda .
Building on the compatibility lessons learned from these companies, we thus
define a baseline
manylinux1 platform tag for use by binary Python
wheels, and introduce the implementation of preliminary tools to aid in the
construction of these
Key Causes of Inter-Linux Binary Incompatibility
To properly define a standard that will guarantee that wheel packages meeting
this specification will operate on many linux platforms, it is necessary to
understand the root causes which often prevent portability of pre-compiled
binaries on Linux. The two key causes are dependencies on shared libraries
which are not present on users’ systems, and dependencies on particular
versions of certain core libraries like
For these reasons, to achieve broad portability, Python wheels
- should depend only on an extremely limited set of external shared libraries; and
- should depend only on “old” symbol versions in those external shared libraries; and
- should depend only on a widely-compatible kernel ABI.
To be eligible for the
manylinux1 platform tag, a Python wheel must
therefore both (a) contain binary executables and compiled code that links
only to libraries with SONAMEs
included in the following list:
libpanelw.so.5 libncursesw.so.5 libgcc_s.so.1 libstdc++.so.6 libm.so.6 libdl.so.2 librt.so.1 libc.so.6 libnsl.so.1 libutil.so.1 libpthread.so.0 libresolv.so.2 libX11.so.6 libXext.so.6 libXrender.so.1 libICE.so.6 libSM.so.6 libGL.so.1 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgthread-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0
and, (b) work on a stock CentOS 5.11  system that contains the system package manager’s provided versions of these libraries.
libcrypt.so.1 was retrospectively removed from the whitelist after
Fedora 30 was released with
Because CentOS 5 is only available for x86_64 and i686 architectures,
these are the only architectures currently supported by the
On Debian-based systems, these libraries are provided by the packages
libncurses5 libgcc1 libstdc++6 libc6 libx11-6 libxext6 libxrender1 libice6 libsm6 libgl1-mesa-glx libglib2.0-0
On RPM-based systems, these libraries are provided by the packages
ncurses libgcc libstdc++ glibc libXext libXrender libICE libSM mesa-libGL glib2
This list was compiled by checking the external shared library dependencies of the Canopy  and Anaconda  distributions, which both include a wide array of the most popular Python modules and have been confirmed in practice to work across a wide swath of Linux systems in the wild.
Many of the permitted system libraries listed above use symbol versioning schemes for backward compatibility. The latest symbol versions provided with the CentOS 5.11 versions of these libraries are:
GLIBC_2.5 CXXABI_3.4.8 GLIBCXX_3.4.9 GCC_4.2.0
Therefore, as a consequence of requirement (b), any wheel that depends on versioned symbols from the above shared libraries may depend only on symbols with the following versions:
GLIBC <= 2.5 CXXABI <= 3.4.8 GLIBCXX <= 3.4.9 GCC <= 4.2.0
These recommendations are the outcome of the relevant discussions in January 2016 , .
Note that in our recommendations below, we do not suggest that
or PyPI should attempt to check for and enforce the details of this
policy (just as they don’t check for and enforce the details of
existing platform tags like
win32). The text above is provided (a)
as advice to package builders, and (b) as a method for allocating
blame if a given wheel doesn’t work on some system: if it satisfies
the policy above, then this is a bug in the spec or the installation
tool; if it does not satisfy the policy above, then it’s a bug in the
wheel. One useful consequence of this approach is that it leaves open
the possibility of further updates and tweaks as we gain more
experience, e.g., we could have a “manylinux 1.1” policy which targets
the same systems and uses the same
manylinux1 platform tag (and
thus requires no further changes to
pip or PyPI), but that adjusts
the list above to remove libraries that have turned out to be
problematic or add libraries that have turned out to be safe.
libpythonX.Y.so.1 is not on the list of libraries that
manylinux1 extension is allowed to link to. Explicitly linking
libpythonX.Y.so.1 is unnecessary in almost all cases: the way
ELF linking works, extension modules that are loaded into the
interpreter automatically get access to all of the interpreter’s
symbols, regardless of whether or not the extension itself is
explicitly linked against libpython. Furthermore, explicit linking to
libpython creates problems in the common configuration where Python is
not built with
--enable-shared. In particular, on Debian and
apt install pythonX.Y does not even install
libpythonX.Y.so.1, meaning that any wheel that did depend on
libpythonX.Y.so.1 could fail to import.
There is one situation where extensions that are linked in this way
can fail to work: if a host program (e.g.,
dlopen() to load a module (e.g.,
mod_wsgi) that embeds the
CPython interpreter, and the host program does not pass the
RTLD_GLOBAL flag to
dlopen(), then the embedded CPython will
be unable to load any extension modules that do not themselves link
RTLD_GLOBAL flag, as do all the other programs that
embed-CPython-via-a-dlopened-plugin that we could locate, so this does
not seem to be a serious problem in practice. The incompatibility with
Debian/Ubuntu is more of an issue than the theoretical incompatibility
with a rather obscure corner case.
This is a rather complex and subtle issue that extends beyond
the scope of
manylinux1; for more discussion see: , ,
UCS-2 vs UCS-4 builds
All versions of CPython 2.x, plus CPython 3.0-3.2 inclusive, can be
built in two ABI-incompatible modes: builds using the
--enable-unicode=ucs2 configure flag store Unicode data in UCS-2
(or really UTF-16) format, while builds using the
--enable-unicode=ucs4 configure flag store Unicode data in
UCS-4. (CPython 3.3 and greater use a different storage method that
always supports UCS-4.) If we want to make sure
ucs2 wheels don’t
get installed into
ucs4 CPythons and vice-versa, then something
must be done.
An earlier version of this PEP included a requirement that
manylinux1 wheels targeting these older CPython versions should
always use the
ucs4 ABI. But then, in between the PEP’s initial
acceptance and its implementation,
first-class support for tracking and checking this aspect of ABI
compatibility for the relevant CPython versions, which is a better
solution. So we now allow the
manylinux1 platform tags to be used
in combination with any ABI tag. However, to maintain compatibility it
is crucial to ensure that all
manylinux1 wheels include a
non-trivial abi tag. For example, a wheel built against a
CPython might have a name like:
PKG-VERSION-cp27-cp27mu-manylinux1_x86_64.whl ^^^^^^ Good!
While a wheel built against the
ucs2 ABI might have a name like:
PKG-VERSION-cp27-cp27m-manylinux1_x86_64.whl ^^^^^ Okay!
But you should never have a wheel with a name like:
PKG-VERSION-cp27-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl ^^^^ BAD! Don't do this!
This wheel claims to be simultaneously compatible with both ucs2 and ucs4 builds, which is bad.
We note for information that the
ucs4 ABI appears to be much more
widespread among Linux CPython distributors.
fpectl builds vs. no fpectl builds
All extant versions of CPython can be built either with or without the
--with-fpectl flag to
configure. It turns out that this
changes the CPython ABI: extensions that are built against a
fpectl CPython are always compatible with yes-
CPython, but the reverse is not necessarily true. (Symptom: errors at
import time complaining about
undefined symbol: PyFPE_jbuf.) See:
For maximum compatibility, therefore, the CPython used to build
manylinux1 wheels must be compiled without the
flag, and manylinux1 extensions must not reference the symbol
Compilation of Compliant Wheels
The way glibc, libgcc, and libstdc++ manage their symbol versioning
means that in practice, the compiler toolchains that most developers
use to do their daily work are incapable of building
manylinux1-compliant wheels. Therefore, we do not attempt to change
the default behavior of
pip wheel /
bdist_wheel: they will
continue to generate regular
linux_* platform tags, and developers
who wish to use them to generate
manylinux1-tagged wheels will
have to change the tag as a second post-processing step.
To support the compilation of wheels meeting the
manylinux1 standard, we
provide initial drafts of two tools.
The first tool is a Docker image based on CentOS 5.11, which is recommended as
an easy to use self-contained build box for compiling
. Compiling on a more recently-released linux distribution will generally
introduce dependencies on too-new versioned symbols. The image comes with a
full compiler suite installed (
gfortran 4.8.2) as
well as the latest releases of Python and
The second tool is a command line executable called
auditwheel  that
may aid in package maintainers in dealing with third-party external
There are at least three methods for building wheels that use third-party external libraries in a way that meets the above policy.
- The third-party libraries can be statically linked.
- The third-party shared libraries can be distributed in separate packages on PyPI which are depended upon by the wheel.
- The third-party shared libraries can be bundled inside the wheel libraries, linked with a relative path.
All of these are valid option which may be effectively used by different packages and communities. Statically linking generally requires package-specific modifications to the build system, and distributing third-party dependencies on PyPI may require some coordination of the community of users of the package.
As an often-automatic alternative to these options, we introduce
The tool inspects all of the ELF files inside a wheel to check for
dependencies on versioned symbols or external shared libraries, and verifies
conformance with the
manylinux1 policy. This includes the ability to add
the new platform tag to conforming wheels. More importantly,
the ability to automatically modify wheels that depend on external shared
libraries by copying those shared libraries from the system into the wheel
itself, and modifying the appropriate
RPATH entries such that these
libraries will be picked up at runtime. This accomplishes a similar result as
if the libraries had been statically linked without requiring changes to the
build system. Packagers are advised that bundling, like static linking, may
implicate copyright concerns.
Bundled Wheels on Linux
While we acknowledge many approaches for dealing with third-party library
manylinux1 wheels, we recognize that the
policy encourages bundling external dependencies, a practice
which runs counter to the package management policies of many linux
distributions’ system package managers , . The primary purpose of
this is cross-distro compatibility. Furthermore,
manylinux1 wheels on PyPI
occupy a different niche than the Python packages available through the
system package manager.
The decision in this PEP to encourage departure from general Linux distribution unbundling policies is informed by the following concerns:
- In these days of automated continuous integration and deployment pipelines, publishing new versions and updating dependencies is easier than it was when those policies were defined.
pipusers remain free to use the
"--no-binary"option if they want to force local builds rather than using pre-built wheel files.
- The popularity of modern container based deployment and “immutable infrastructure” models involve substantial bundling at the application layer anyway.
- Distribution of bundled wheels through PyPI is currently the norm for Windows and OS X.
- This PEP doesn’t rule out the idea of offering more targeted binaries for particular Linux distributions in the future.
The model described in this PEP is most ideally suited for cross-platform Python packages, because it means they can reuse much of the work that they’re already doing to make static Windows and OS X wheels. We recognize that it is less optimal for Linux-specific packages that might prefer to interact more closely with Linux’s unique package management functionality and only care about targeting a small set of particular distos.
One of the advantages of dependencies on centralized libraries in Linux is that bugfixes and security updates can be deployed system-wide, and applications which depend on these libraries will automatically feel the effects of these patches when the underlying libraries are updated. This can be particularly important for security updates in packages engaged in communication across the network or cryptography.
manylinux1 wheels distributed through PyPI that bundle security-critical
libraries like OpenSSL will thus assume responsibility for prompt updates in
response disclosed vulnerabilities and patches. This closely parallels the
security implications of the distribution of binary wheels on Windows that,
because the platform lacks a system package manager, generally bundle their
dependencies. In particular, because it lacks a stable ABI, OpenSSL cannot be
included in the
Platform Detection for Installers
Above, we defined what it means for a wheel to be
manylinux1-compatible. Here we discuss what it means for a Python
installation to be
manylinux1-compatible. In particular, this is
important for tools like
pip to know when deciding whether or not
they should consider
manylinux1-tagged wheels for installation.
manylinux1 profile is already known to work for the
many thousands of users of popular commercial Python distributions, we
suggest that installation tools should error on the side of assuming
that a system is compatible, unless there is specific reason to
We know of four main sources of potential incompatibility that are likely to arise in practice:
- Eventually, in the future, there may exist distributions that break compatibility with this profile (e.g., if one of the libraries in the profile changes its ABI in a backwards-incompatible way)
- A linux distribution that is too old (e.g. RHEL 4)
- A linux distribution that does not use
glibc(e.g. Alpine Linux, which is based on musl
libc, or Android)
To address these we propose a two-pronged
approach. To handle potential future incompatibilities, we standardize
a mechanism for a Python distributor to signal that a particular
Python install definitely is or is not compatible with
this is done by installing a module named
_manylinux, and setting
manylinux1_compatible attribute. We do not propose adding any
such module to the standard library – this is merely a well-known
name by which distributors and installation tools can
rendezvous. However, if a distributor does add this module, they
should add it to the standard library rather than to a
site-packages/ directory, because the standard library is
inherited by virtualenvs (which we want), and
general is not.
Then, to handle the last two cases for existing Python
distributions, we suggest a simple and reliable method to check for
the presence and version of
glibc (basically using it as a “clock”
for the overall age of the distribution).
Specifically, the algorithm we propose is:
def is_manylinux1_compatible(): # Only Linux, and only x86-64 / i686 from distutils.util import get_platform if get_platform() not in ["linux-x86_64", "linux-i686"]: return False # Check for presence of _manylinux module try: import _manylinux return bool(_manylinux.manylinux1_compatible) except (ImportError, AttributeError): # Fall through to heuristic check below pass # Check glibc version. CentOS 5 uses glibc 2.5. return have_compatible_glibc(2, 5) def have_compatible_glibc(major, minimum_minor): import ctypes process_namespace = ctypes.CDLL(None) try: gnu_get_libc_version = process_namespace.gnu_get_libc_version except AttributeError: # Symbol doesn't exist -> therefore, we are not linked to # glibc. return False # Call gnu_get_libc_version, which returns a string like "2.5". gnu_get_libc_version.restype = ctypes.c_char_p version_str = gnu_get_libc_version() # py2 / py3 compatibility: if not isinstance(version_str, str): version_str = version_str.decode("ascii") # Parse string and check against requested version. version = [int(piece) for piece in version_str.split(".")] assert len(version) == 2 if major != version: return False if minimum_minor > version: return False return True
Rejected alternatives: We also considered using a configuration
/etc/python/compatibility.cfg. The problem with this is
that a single filesystem might contain many different interpreter
environments, each with their own ABI profile – the
compatibility of a system-installed x86_64 CPython might not tell us
much about the
manylinux1 compatibility of a user-installed i686
PyPy. Locating this configuration information within the Python
environment itself ensures that it remains attached to the correct
binary, and dramatically simplifies lookup code.
We also considered using a more elaborate structure, like a list of
all platform tags that should be considered compatible, together with
their preference ordering, for example:
["manylinux1_x86_64", "centos5_x86_64", "linux_x86_64"]. However,
this introduces several complications. For example, we want to be able
to distinguish between the state of “doesn’t support
manylinux2, etc.) versus “doesn’t specify either
way whether it supports
manylinux1”, which is not entirely obvious
in the above representation; and, it’s not at all clear what features
are really needed vis a vis preference ordering given that right now
the only possible platform tags are
we’re deferring a more complete solution here for a separate PEP, when
/ if Linux gets more platform tags.
For the library compatibility check, we also considered much more
elaborate checks (e.g. checking the kernel version, searching for and
checking the versions of all the individual libraries listed in the
manylinux1 profile, etc.), but ultimately decided that this would
be more likely to introduce confusing bugs than actually help the
user. (For example: different distributions vary in where they
actually put these libraries, and if our checking code failed to use
the correct path search then it could easily return incorrect
PyPI should permit wheels containing the
manylinux1 platform tag to be
uploaded. PyPI should not attempt to formally verify that wheels containing
manylinux1 platform tag adhere to the
manylinux1 policy described
in this document. This verification tasks should be left to other tools, like
auditwheel, that are developed separately.
One alternative would be to provide separate platform tags for each Linux
distribution (and each version thereof), e.g.
debian_jessie, etc. Nothing in this proposal rules out the possibility of
adding such platform tags in the future, or of further extensions to wheel
metadata that would allow wheels to declare dependencies on external
system-installed packages. However, such extensions would require substantially
more work than this proposal, and still might not be appreciated by package
developers who would prefer not to have to maintain multiple build environments
and build multiple wheels in order to cover all the common Linux distributions.
Therefore, we consider such proposals to be out-of-scope for this PEP.
We anticipate that at some point in the future there will be a
manylinux2 specifying a more modern baseline environment (perhaps
based on CentOS 6), and someday a
manylinux3 and so forth, but we
defer specifying these until we have more experience with the initial
This document has been placed into the public domain.
Last modified: 2022-06-14 21:22:20 GMT