Paul F. Dubois
paul at pfdubois.com
Fri Feb 4 20:04:21 CST 2005
My experience with binary distributions has convinced me that it is a
hopeless endeavor in the long run. I understand why people want them but
until you've tried to provide them to the public and seen the number of
things that go wrong ... Not to mention that it means you have to have
someone build on all those systems and you don't have them all. And if
the person is going to add their other extensions, compiled with a
different compiler, blooie.
Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> I have in the past tried to install SciPy on OSX and I had big
>> problems with it. Motivated by the recent discussions on the list I
>> tried again today, and found it much improved, but still quite
>> involved. It would still be a pain to distribute software that has a
>> dependency on SciPy to 'average users' that would have trouble
>> installing SciPy. There does not seem to be a binary distribution on
>> scipy.org for OS X, which would solve that problem. This is not
>> unimportant, since I guess OS X is gaining popularity in scientific
> A binary for OS X is a desireable thing. I think more of a stink should
> be made, so that one gets provided by default. I know that Robert Kern
> has worked on such a thing and it is not out of the question, but is on
> the horizon. More users asking for it would help.
>>> I'm very glad to hear these comments, as I constantly wonder why
>>> people seem to be duplicating SciPy's efforts instead of helping SciPy.
>> I agree with that, but fact is that the split between Numarray and
>> Numeric prevented me from contributing to SciPy. I have developed for
>> numarray (the image processing package nd_image, part of numarray, is
>> done by me) because I felt numarray was much better then Numeric for
>> that application, and that also ruled out SciPy. There seems now to be
>> an effort going to either try to merge the two or to bring Numeric up
>> to numarray standard. Thats great, and if that works out I will try to
>> rewrite my package so it works with both. Would be happy to
>> contribute it to SciPy. But I would make sure it remains a package
>> that can be installed separately from SciPy if required.
> "What scipy is" is quite open to interpretation. The idea of scipy is
> just to have a super-package where different packages can live and have
> some kind of inter-operability. It is made so that sub-packages can be
> easily added and built upon request. We try hard to make sure that the
> only real dependency is scipy_base which should not be hard to install
> anywhere (does not require ATLAS or FORTRAN).
> It would be great to add nd_image as a sub-package to SciPy. In fact,
> nd_image was one of the things that most alarmed me about the emerging
> split in the community, as it reproduces some of what is already in
> SciPy (N-D convolution) while adding some great things that I've always
> wanted in SciPy (morphology).
> I believe scipy can be easily installed as a collection of packages if
> that is desired. Pearu has done an incredible job with scipy_disutils
> to make that process simple. Making a single super package helps users
> see that they have only a part of what's available (but maybe all they
> need), and you get the added benefit of standard documentation
> efforts. Nobody has taken up the ball to actually try and distribute
> individual packages of scipy, but it is a welcome effort.
> www.scipy.org has places where such packages could live. Enthought has
> mainly been interested in distributing "batteries-included" packages for
> windows because it is what their customers need. Other are welcome to
> pick up the slack.
> Perhaps it would be good to get a list of which platforms actually need
> binaries for people to look more favorably at SciPy. I can see that OS
> X is on the top of that list, surely somebody could distribute a copy of
> a binary for that platform (I know of people who have it installed).
> Also, scipy is still version 0.3 not because the code is unstable but
> because the layout of the packages is still open to change. Come and
> discuss your visions of what it should look like with us on the
> scipy-dev at scipy.net mailing list.
>> Making SciPy modular is in my opinion a very good approach. Why do I
>> need to install all of it, if I really only need a few parts? If I
>> can install only the subset I need, the likelihood that I will have an
>> easier job doing that will increase. That would make it also possible
>> to have sub-sets that are free of dependencies such as FORTRAN.
>> On the other hand, I would think it would be a good idea to write
>> software that does not have dependencies on big packages such as
>> SciPy when possible, but only on Numeric/Numarray. That does not
>> exclude them from being included in SciPy. It seems to me that it
>> would be a desirable property if a package can be installed just with
>> Numeric (or numarray), with an appropriate sub-set of SciPy, or come
>> with the big SciPy package. I would rather see a "collection of SciPy
>> packages" then a "SciPy package".
> I'd like to see more of the development work that goes on happen under a
> common standard, that is all. SciPy has done a lot of work to provide
> an infrastructure within which to distribute packages. The field is
> built, but people don't seem to want to come. I understand that the
> Numeric / Numarray dichotomy is a big source of this problem. That is
> the whole reason I'm devoting a big portion of my time to the problem
> right now.
> My very ambitious goal with Numeric3 is to replace both Numeric and
> Numarray (heavily borrowing code from each). When I say replace them,
> I'm talking about the array object and umath module. I'm not talking
> about the other packages that use them. I want those to live under a
> common standard (i.e. scipy). It would be fine with me if that common
> standard include a scipy_lite or something like that which was easy to
> install, if that is desired. But, if the problem is really just
> availability of binary copies, then why don't we solve that instead of
> worrying about installation on platforms that nobody uses. In
> addition, even though I've developed a lot of scipy, I'm willing to
> throw it all out or alter it considerably in order to satisfy the
> demands that exist for package developers to want to put their weight
> behind something like SciPy. So, don't equate history with an
> unwillingness to cooperate.
> I think you'll find the people involved with scipy to be incredibly
> willing to cooperate to achieve mutual success. If you have users of a
> package that demand a certain binary of scipy to be installed, then
> bring them over. I can almost guarantee you that a copy of scipy will
> be available for them.
> While I do recognize the value of repeated work. When it comes to
> interoperability, single standards seem to work best. So, the longer
> this unnecessary division of resources goes on, the farther behind
> Python will get for doing anything but niche work.
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
> Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
> by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
> Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
> Numpy-discussion mailing list
> Numpy-discussion at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the Numpy-discussion