On 01/15/2016 04:08 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
So, again, I love conda for what it can do when it works well. I only take exception to the notion that it can address *all* problems, because there are some problems that it just simply isn't properly situated for.
Actually, I would say you didn't mention any ... ;) The issue is not that it "isn't properly situated for" (whatever that means) the problems you describe, but that -- in the case you mention, for example -- no one has conda-packaged those solutions yet. FWIW, our sysadmins and I use conda for django / apache / mod_wsgi sites and we are very happy with it. IMO, compiling mod_wsgi in the conda environment and keeping it up is trivial compared to the awkwardnesses introduced by using pip/virtualenv in those cases. We also use conda for sites with nginx and the conda-packaged uwsgi, which works great and even permits the use of a separate env (with, if necessary, different versions of django, etc.) for each application. No need to set up an entire VM for each app! *My* sysadmins love conda -- as soon as they saw how much better than pip/virtualenv it was, they have never looked back. IMO, conda is by *far* the best packaging solution the python community has ever seen (and I have been using python for more than 20 years). I too have been stunned by some of the resistance to conda that one sometimes sees in the python packaging world. I've had a systems package maintainer tell me "it solves a different problem [than pip]" ... hmmm ... I would say it solves the same problem *and more*, *better*. I attribute some of the conda-ignoring to "NIH" and, to some extent, possibly defensiveness (I would be defensive too if I had been working on pip as long as they had when conda came along ;). Cheers, Steve Waterbury NASA/GSFC _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion