[Numpy-discussion] testing binary installer for OS X

Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers@googlemail....
Fri Feb 26 20:59:52 CST 2010

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:17 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:44 AM,  <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think I mixed up some things then,
> > scipy 0.7.1 cython files should be regenerated with the latest cython
> > release so that it doesn't check the sizeof anymore.
> > Then, a scipy 0.7.1 build against numpy 1.3 would also work without
> > recompiling against numpy 1.4.1
> >
> > Is this correct?
> Yes, this is correct. It is impossible to create a numpy 1.4.x which
> is compatible with the *existing* scipy binary, because several
> structures have been growing (not only because of datetime).
> The cython changes have already been incorporated in scipy 0.7.x
> branch, so in the end, what should be done is a new 0.7.2 scipy binary
> built against numpy 1.3.0, which will then be compatible with both
> numpy 1.3 and 1.4 binaries,
> Hmm, I remember you saying this a while ago and I'm sure you're right. But
it got lost in the noise, and like Charles I thought the aim was to produce
a 1.4.x binary compatible with what's out there now. This is also what you
said on Wednesday:

So here is how I see things in the near future for release:
- compile a simple binary installer for mac os x and windows (no need
for doc or multiple archs) from 1.4.x
- test this with the scipy binary out there (running the full test
suites), ideally other well known packages as well (matplotlib,
pytables, etc...).

So now this seems to be impossible. I'm not so sure then we're not confusing
even more confusing with yet another incompatible binary...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100227/567813a4/attachment.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list