COcozzyd·Sep 30, 2020
Yes... that's exactly what I was referring to. The problem is this: https://github.com/pypa/packaging-problems/issues/328
In Python 3.9 is around the cornerpypa
packaging-problems
Developer Tools2018–2026
pypa / packaging-problems
packaging-problems
An issue tracker for the problems in packaging
9Distinct people
9Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
192GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
An issue tracker for the problems in packaging
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
- pypa/manylinux · linked in 2 of the same discussions
Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 1:03:20 AM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year9 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2018-10-12 21:48:24 UTC to 2026-09-08 00:48:52 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 2019 | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
3 sourcesYou can really go down the rabbit hole trying to figure out where the wheel+Alpine problem should be fixed. https://github.com/pypa/packaging-problems/issues/69 is a newer bug that is tracking this. Python relies on the "manylinux" specification (https://github.com/pypa/manylinux) which originally pinned build environments to CentOS 5, was updated in 2018 to use CentOS 6, and then updated in 2019 to use CentOS 7.
It's entirely possible that the Alpine user base isn't as big/important as I would think but this seems like something that needs to be solved.
In Poetry – Python dependency management and packaging> If you just need pandas, then you can install it with apk along with many other packages and it'll be much quicker: https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/packages?page=1&branch=edge&nam....
And so again need to rely on something "non-standard".
> Alpine are doing what they can, by maintaining common python packages on apk. It is pip that is tied to glibc
The "manylinux" tag means glibc by necessity, because nobody has driven a PEP for tagging, detecting and managing musl-based wheels to completion[0]. The issue is not restricted to the choice of libc, or even linux alone, either. But again, that requires people actually put in the work to chip at and fix the issue[1].
[0] https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/issues/37
[1] https://github.com/pypa/packaging-problems/issues/69
In Alpine makes Python Docker builds slower, and images larger