# One time ABI breakage

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/one-time-abi-breakage/108514>\
**Category:** Core Development\
**Created:** [August 11, 2026, 1:09pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/one-time-abi-breakage/108514 "2026-08-11T13:09:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hpkfft](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/hpkfft/32/34423_2.png) [@hpkfft](https://discuss.python.org/u/hpkfft)\
**Post date:** [August 12, 2026, 6:31pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/one-time-abi-breakage/108514/9 "2026-08-12T18:31:52Z")

</div>

> [@ngoldbaum](#):
>
> It’s less clear-cut for projects that use Cython or Nanobind (both don’t yet or can’t yet support abi3t).

Regarding nanobind, see also: [PEP 803, round two – “abi3t”: Stable ABI for Free-Threaded Builds - #28 by wjakob](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-803-round-two-abi3t-stable-abi-for-free-threaded-builds/106181/28)  
My personal preference would be to focus on `abi3t` with the intention of (eventually) dropping `abi3`, given the reality that development resources are not infinite.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/one-time-abi-breakage/108514)._