[Numpy-discussion] Future directions for SciPy in light of meeting at Berkeley
verveer at embl-heidelberg.de
Wed Mar 9 03:00:44 CST 2005
> Proposal (just an idea to start discussion):
> Subdivide scipy into several super packages that install cleanly but
> can also be installed separately. Implement a CPAN-or-yum-like
> repository and query system for installing scientific packages.
+1, I would be far more inclined to contribute if we could agree on
such a structure.
> Extra sub-packages: named in a hierarchy to be determined and probably
> each dependent on a variety of scipy-sub-packages.
> I haven't fleshed this thing out yet as you can tell. I'm mainly
> talking publicly to spur discussion. The basic idea is that we should
> force ourselves to distribute scipy in separate packages. This would
> force us to implement a yum-or-CPAN-like package repository, so that
> we define the interface as to how an additional module could be
> developed by someone, even maintained separately (with a different
> license), and simply inserted into an intelligent point under the
> scipy infrastructure.
1) We should consider the issue of licenses. For instance: the python
wrappers for GSL and FFTW probably need to be GPL-licensed. These
packages definitely need to be part of a repository. There needs to be
some kind of a category for such packages, as their license is more
2) If there is going to be a repository structure it should provide for
packages that can be installed independently of a scipy hierarchy.
Packages that only require a dependency on the Numeric core should not
require scipy_core. That makes sense if Numeric3 ever gets into the
core Python. Such packages could (and probably should) also live in a
dual scipy namespace.
More information about the Numpy-discussion