[SciPy-User] Pylab - standard packages
Tue Sep 18 19:03:26 CDT 2012
On Sep 18, 2012, at 6:51 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 00:16, Matthew Brett <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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):
Don't forget about the new-comer to the freely-available binary distributions, Anaconda CE: which is a reference implementation as well and includes all the packages we are discussing: http://www.continuum.io/downloads.html
But, in general, the point of this conversation is not to lobby anyone to change their tools. It is to define what the community considers to be a reference implementation (however it is obtained) with version numbers of specific packages.
> 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.
It's easy to do. The next version of Anaconda CE is going to contain a C-compiler for Windows, for example. You can't really include Cython in the standard without a C-compiler. This, to me, makes the case for pylab-full (i.e. you want to have some definition that includes Cython, and you need a compiler to put Cython in there).
> 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?
The best thing to do is just encourage people to install XCode, I think.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SciPy-User