[SciPy-dev] Restructuring of SciPy
oliphant at ee.byu.edu
Mon Aug 22 15:35:46 CDT 2005
Joe Harrington wrote:
>On this thread from last week, I thought we had already decided to
>move in the direction of modules and well-written intro docs that
>point you to a specific graphics package (while letting you know that
>others exist and pointing you to more info). The concept was laid out
>in the ASP doc and ensuing discussion, for which see the wiki. We
>also introduced the idea of umbrella packages, which are
>(nearly-)empty packages that depend on (and therefore cause your
>package manager to download and install) useful sets of modules. For
>example, we could have a scipy-astro-all that got scipy-core,
>scipy-docs, scipy-astro, scipy-matplotlib, and so on, but not
>scipy-bio-molecules or scipy-em-whatever. For that matter, we could
>(should) have a scipy-all, that gets everything.
O.K., then from your perspective, my question has to do with should what
is currently under the umbrella of the scipy source tree (i.e. what is
in svn) be more fully restructured into scipy-optimize, scipy-integrate,
scipy-linalg, etc. with this restructuring also reflected in the svn
layout (so that one can check out just a portion of the source).
Do certain choices in svn structure make package management more or less
easy. I don't have the answer, I was just pointing out that we ought to
think about it.
I'm gathering that nobody really knows...
More information about the Scipy-dev