# Building module wheel with an older manylinux image

**URL:** https://discourse.itk.org/t/building-module-wheel-with-an-older-manylinux-image/6439
**Category:** Uncategorized
**Created:** [February 14, 2024, 8:52pm UTC](https://discourse.itk.org/t/building-module-wheel-with-an-older-manylinux-image/6439 "2024-02-14T20:52:49Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![simon.rit](https://discourse.itk.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/f08c70/32.png) [@simon.rit](https://discourse.itk.org/u/simon.rit)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2024, 8:52pm UTC](https://discourse.itk.org/t/building-module-wheel-with-an-older-manylinux-image/6439/1 "2024-02-14T20:52:50Z")

</div>

With [this commit](https://github.com/InsightSoftwareConsortium/ITKPythonPackage/commit/3b72e1323a1d8686910e8eda17b6af3878aa09dd), ITKPythonPackage has upgraded the dockcross image tag, thus upgrading (among other things) GCC to version 12. Because Cuda 11 is not compatible with this gcc, I had to downgrade the image tag to have itk-cudacommon-cuda116 compiled, see [this commit](https://github.com/RTKConsortium/ITKCudaCommon/pull/33/commits/6ba7b465b0fcf3ad74eb421e14efc3db2c935203). However, this compilation uses [ITKPythonBuild v5.4rc02](https://github.com/InsightSoftwareConsortium/ITKPythonBuilds/releases/tag/v5.4rc02). Does anyone know if it can be an issue if a module wheel is not built with the same dockcross image as the main ITK wheels?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![matt.mccormick](https://discourse.itk.org/user_avatar/discourse.itk.org/matt.mccormick/32/7_2.png) [@matt.mccormick](https://discourse.itk.org/u/matt.mccormick)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2024, 8:59pm UTC](https://discourse.itk.org/t/building-module-wheel-with-an-older-manylinux-image/6439/2 "2024-02-15T20:59:46Z")

</div>

Hi @simon.rit ,

If it is targeting the same manylinux version, e.g. `_2_28-x64`, the C abi and other dependencies should be compatible. A possible issue is the C++ abi. In practice, it may be fine – it helps that we are using a newer C++ standard in ITK. Many packages are moving to CUDA 12 so that would not hurt either if it is an option.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![simon.rit](https://discourse.itk.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/f08c70/32.png) [@simon.rit](https://discourse.itk.org/u/simon.rit)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2024, 8:06am UTC](https://discourse.itk.org/t/building-module-wheel-with-an-older-manylinux-image/6439/3 "2024-02-16T08:06:54Z")

</div>

Good news, thanks for the information. Moving to Cuda 12 is obviously the plan. I guess I can already do it for CudaCommon, that should be straightforward. But as you know, I mainly use it for RTK and I have to fix the deprecation of texture reference with Cuda 12, see [here](https://github.com/RTKConsortium/RTK/issues/549)… On my TODO list.