[SciPy-User] Pylab - standard packages
Fri Sep 21 13:25:49 CDT 2012
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Skipper Seabold <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Kluyver <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 21 September 2012 18:15, Skipper Seabold <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > This sounds great. A few others I usually put in a fresh install.
>> > mpmath
>> > sphinx
>> I don't know about mpmath. I probably wouldn't include Sphinx in the
>> spec, as it's important more when you're developing and releasing
>> packages. But it does return us to the question about general-purpose
>> Python packages. Should we require distribute, for example - or just
>> specify that there must be a package installation mechanism?
> What about popular tools like requests?
Never heard about it before just now, and not really related to scientific
Or things like GUI toolkits that are difficult to install separately?
>> Although PyQt would rather
>> increase the minimum size.
We're talking about the base (non-compiler) version, right? Then -1 on GUI
We need nose to run tests for almost all packages.
I'd further suggest PIL (pillow) -- still popular .... sigh. Or better
actually, make sure FreeImage is in with scikits-image.
h5py seems to be close to PyTables in popularity and growing faster,
perhaps include both?
I like the idea of trying to emulate something like R's install.package
> (eventually). This, to me, is one of the reasons it's so successful. The
> target audience, as I think it is for pylab, is users - people that are
> proficient at writing scripts and generally smart problem solvers but not
> necessarily extremely great programmers. For example, I don't think there's
> an assumption that the average R user has working knowledge of how to build
> a package from scratch. Developers, on the other hand, don't need too much
> hand holding to get the other tools they need - e.g., compilers, sphinx
> probably falls in here, etc. If having things like distribute in the
> package helps move us in this direction (would it?), then I think that's a
> good argument for including it.
Before something like a robust "install.package" is a reality, I'm not sure
requiring setuptools/distribute/pip/... is useful. It breaks all the time,
which will give new users a poor impression of Pylab (or Python).
Python(x,y)'s solution of plugins as .exe files is much less likely to
break if done right.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SciPy-User