Description

befeleme

opened on Mar 17, 2025

Issue body actions

Bug report

Bug description:

In Fedora, we build Python in 4 variants: debug, optimized, freethreading-debug and freethreading. For all of them builds the base_interpreter value stored in the file build-details.json is the same:

  "base_interpreter": "/usr/bin/python3.14",

I suspect it should reflect the build type and contain the applicable suffix(es): d, t, td.
Because of this line, when we run Python's test suite on an installed python3-debug, the test fails, as you can see e.g. here: https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/0ac8ab69-ed5f-4602-9c01-8c13293aa9b6/

test_base_interpreter (test.test_build_details.CPythonBuildDetailsTests.test_base_interpreter) ... FAIL

======================================================================
FAIL: test_base_interpreter (test.test_build_details.CPythonBuildDetailsTests.test_base_interpreter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/test/test_build_details.py", line 124, in test_base_interpreter
    self.assertEqual(os.path.realpath(value), os.path.realpath(sys.executable))
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AssertionError: '/usr/bin/python3.14' != '/usr/bin/python3.14d'
- /usr/bin/python3.14
+ /usr/bin/python3.14d
?                    +

Another issue is that in both cases, the debug and non-debug files are installed to the same location, resulting in a single rewritten file. In case of our sequential build of 4 Pythons, we end up with just two files. Should they be stored in distinct locations for each build instead?

CPython versions tested on:

3.14

Operating systems tested on:

Linux

Linked PRs

• gh-131372: Include LDVERSION and EXE in base_interpreter value #142256
• GH-131372: only install build-details.json in the main install #142269
• gh-131372: Configurable build-details.json name #150098
• gh-131372: Fix a typo #150414

Reacted by Miro Hrončok

Activity

1. befeleme

   added

   type-bugAn unexpected behavior, bug, or errorAn unexpected behavior, bug, or error

   on Mar 17, 2025
2. hugovk commented on Mar 17, 2025

   

   hugovk

   on Mar 17, 2025

   Member

   More actions

   cc @FFY00
3. picnixz

   added

   buildThe build process and cross-buildThe build process and cross-build

   topic-installation

   on Mar 17, 2025
4. FFY00 commented on Apr 29, 2025

   

   FFY00

   on Apr 29, 2025

   Member

   More actions

   Another issue is that in both cases, the debug and non-debug files are installed to the same location, resulting in a single rewritten file. In case of our sequential build of 4 Pythons, we end up with just two files. Should they be stored in distinct locations for each build instead?

   Just ship the file for the main/default interpreter, I guess? We probably shouldn't install the file in altinstall, and better document expectations for scenarios like yours.
5. vstinner commented on Dec 4, 2025

   

   vstinner

   on Dec 4, 2025

   Member

   More actions

   Another issue is that in both cases, the debug and non-debug files are installed to the same location, resulting in a single rewritten file. In case of our sequential build of 4 Pythons, we end up with just two files. Should they be stored in distinct locations for each build instead?

   We may do something similar to sysconfigdata filename like including ABI tags. Example:

   • build-details.json: default Python
   • build-details_d.json: debug build
   • etc.
6. FFY00

   added 5 commits that reference this issue on Dec 4, 2025

   pythonGH-131372: only install build-details.json in the main install

   9fefc6e

   pythonGH-131372: only install build-details.json in the main install

   4719fe3

   Merge branch 'main' into pythongh-131372

   ecea32b

   GH-131372: only install build-details.json in the main install (#142269)

   bcb6cbd

   gh-131372: Include LDVERSION and EXE in base_interpreter value (#142256)

   c0d0f4b
7. stefanor commented on May 10, 2026

   

   stefanor

   on May 10, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   FWIW, there is a draft PEP PR to resolve the design: python/peps#4889
8. stefanor commented on May 20, 2026

   

   stefanor

   on May 20, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   #150098 implements a configure flag to allow selecting a more-qualified than just build-details.json filename.

   Reacted by Victor Stinner
9. FFY00

   added a commit that references this issue on May 25, 2026

   gh-131372: Configurable build-details.json name (#150098)

   9c23f34
10. vstinner

    added a commit that references this issue on May 25, 2026

    gh-131372: Fix a typo on "with_build_details_suffix" in configure (#1…

    583cb03
11. vstinner commented on May 28, 2026

    

    vstinner

    on May 28, 2026

    Member

    More actions

    The "Configurable build-details.json name" change was only merged in the main branch, but the 3.15 is also affected by this issue, no? Should we backport the change to 3.15? (with the typo fix as well)
12. stefanor commented on May 28, 2026

    

    stefanor

    on May 28, 2026

    Contributor

    More actions

    3.14 and 3.15 include build-details.json. So there is value in backporting that to both.

    For me, the main point of the PR was to have an upstream-blessed name for this file that includes the architecture and necessary tags. That goal is now achieved and without needing a backport.

Issue actions