[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.3.0 rc1 OS X Installer
Mon Mar 30 11:19:29 CDT 2009
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov> wrote:
> Well, this is the big question: what python(s) should be provide
> binaries for -- I think if you're only going to do one, it should be the
> python.org build, so that you can support 10.4, and 10.5 and everyone
> can use it.
I don't really care, as long as there is only one. Maintaing binaries
for every python out there is too time consuming. Given that mac os x
is the easiest platform to build numpy/scipy on, that's not something
i am interested in.
> There are ways to build an installer that puts it in a place that both
> can find it -- wxPython does this -- but I'm not so sure that's a good idea.
there is the problem of compatibility. I am not sure whether Apple
python and python.org are ABI compatible - even if the version is the
same, you can certainly build incompatible python (I don't know if
that's the case on mac os).
> Also, Apple has not (and likely won't) upgrade their Python. I know I
> happened to run into a bug and needed a newer 2.5, so I'd rather have
> the control.
That's a rather convincing argument. I will thus build binaries
against python.org binaries (I still have to find a way to guarantee
this in the build script, but that should not be too difficult).
> That being said, it shouldn't be hard to build separate binaries for
> each python -- they would be identical except for where they get
> installed, and if they are clearly marked for downloading, there
> shouldn't be too much confusion.
My experience is that every choice presented to the user makes for
more problem. And that just takes too much time. I prefer spending
time making a few good installers rather than many half baked.
Ideally, we should have something which could install on every python
version, but oh well,
More information about the Numpy-discussion