[SciPy-User] Pylab - standard packages

Thomas Kluyver takowl@gmail....
Tue Sep 18 18:51:18 CDT 2012


On 19 September 2012 00:16, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK - but the website and the name point us to the standard, and thence
> to some installers for that standard?   You are not proposing any new
> installers, but that the standard basically says something like:

Yes, that's the idea.

> So, if we are adding packages to this collection, we are more or less
> lobbying python (x, y) or EPD for those changes?

I expect that the packages we're likely to specify are already
included in those distributions. We might end up lobbying for
additions to EPD Free, but I think that its description as 'Scientific
Python essentials' fits with what we're trying to achieve, so
hopefully Enthought are open to dialogue. This page shows what EPD
Free currently includes (packages with tick marks):
http://www.enthought.com/products/epdlibraries.php

David:
> consider specifying that a c- compiler should be bundled on platforms which don't provide one (ie windows),

Good point. Can someone more Windows-savvy suggest how practical this
is? I assume the VS compiler can't be redistributed, so is mingw
sufficiently lightweight to expect all distributions to include it?
Many packages with compiled components provide executable installers
for Windows.

Also, I don't think Macs actually provide a C compiler - when I had to
test stuff on a Mac, I had to install Xcode before I could do
anything. Will distributions need to include a compiler on the Mac as
well, or would the wording of the definition exclude that?

So I'm leaning towards not requiring a compiler, but I could yet be persuaded.

Thanks,
Thomas


More information about the SciPy-User mailing list