[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.3.0 rc1 OS X Installer

Chris Barker Chris.Barker@noaa....
Mon Mar 30 12:10:16 CDT 2009


David Cournapeau wrote:
> I don't really care, as long as there is only one. Maintaining binaries
> for every python out there is too time consuming. Given that mac os X
> is the easiest platform to build numpy/scipy on,

I assume you meant NOT the easiest? ;-)

> that's not something i am interested in.

quite understandable.

>> 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

In theory, yes, and in practice, it seems to be working for wxPython. 
However, I agree that it's a bit risky. I'm at the PyCon MacPython 
sprint as we type -- and apparently Apple's is linked with the 10.5 sdk, 
whereas python.org's is linked against the 10.3 sdk -- so there could be 
  issues.

> 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).

Hardcoding the path to python should work:

PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.5/bin/python


> 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.

I agree -- and most packages I use seem to supporting python.org 
exclusively for binaries.

> Ideally, we should have something which could install on every python
> version, but oh well,

well, I guess that's the promise of easy_install -- but someone would 
have to build all the binary eggs... and there were weird issues with 
universal eggs on the mac that I understand have been fixed in 2.6, but 
not 2.5

Thanks for all your work on this,

-Chris



More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list