# Moving forward with the next manylinux specification

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/moving-forward-with-the-next-manylinux-specification/2419>\
**Category:** Packaging\
**Created:** [September 30, 2019, 8:32pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/moving-forward-with-the-next-manylinux-specification/2419 "2019-09-30T20:32:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![njs](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/njs/32/204_2.png) [@njs](https://discuss.python.org/u/njs)\
**Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:31am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/moving-forward-with-the-next-manylinux-specification/2419/4 "2019-10-01T04:31:47Z")

</div>

> [@The next manylinux specification](https://discuss.python.org/t/the-next-manylinux-specification/1043/233):
>
> A new thread specifically to discuss the latest version of PEP 600. Basically reboot the perennial manylinux discussion on a dedicated thread.

Here:

> [@PEP 600: Future 'manylinux' Platform Tags for Portable Linux Built Distributions](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-600-future-manylinux-platform-tags-for-portable-linux-built-distributions/2414):
>
> Here’s a thread for PEP 600, the “perennial manylinux” proposal. This has already had extensive discussion in [the other thread](https://discuss.python.org/t/the-next-manylinux-specification/1043/233), but that thread became super unwieldy and ended up with multiple topics mixed together, so @pf_moore suggested we should make a new one focused just on this PEP. The current draft has been extensively reworked since @takluyver’s original draft, and I think addresses all the questions and concerns that were raised. As far as I know this is ready to be accepted. So if yo…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/moving-forward-with-the-next-manylinux-specification/2419)._