hmm -- didn't mean to rev this up quite so much -- sorry! But it's a good conversation to have, so...
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.v.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > That being said... I take exception to your assertion that anaconda is > *the* solution to the packaging problem. > I think we need to keep some things straight here: "conda" is a binary package management system. "Anaconda" is a python (and other stuff) distribution, built with conda. In practice, everyone ( I know of ) uses the Anaconda distribution (or at least the default conda channel) when using conda, but in theory, you could maintain your an entirely distinct distribution with conda as the tool. Also in practice, conda is so easy because continuum has done the hard work of building a lot of the packages we all need -- there are still a lot being maintained by the community in various ways, but frankly, we do depend on continuum for all the hard work. But working on/with conda does not lock you into that if you think it's not serving your needs. And this discussion, (for me anyway) is about tools and the way forward, not existing packages. So onward! > I still have a number of issues, particularly with the interactions of > GDAL, shapely, and Basemap (they all seek out libgeos_c differently), and I > have to use my own build of GDAL to enable many of the features that we use > (the vanilla GDAL put out by Continuum just has the default options, and is > quite limited). > Yeah, GDAL/OGR is a F%$#ing nightmare -- and I do wish that Anaconda had a better build, but frankly, there is no system that's going to make that any easier -- do any of the Linux distros ship a really good compatible, up to date set of these libs -- and OS-X and Windows? yow! (Though Chris Gohlke is a wonder!) > If I don't set up my environment *just right* one of those packages will > fail to import in some way due to being unable to find their particular > version of libgeos_c. I haven't figure it out exactly why this happens, but > it is very easy to break such an environment this way after an update. > Maybe conda could be improved to make this easier, I don't know (though do checkout out the IOOS channel on anaconda.org Filipe has done some nice work on this) > In a clutch, we had our IT staff manually build mod_wsgi against > anaconda's python, but they weren't too happy about that, due to mod_wsgi > no longer getting updated via yum. > I'm not sure how pip helps you out here, either. sure for easy-to-compile from source packages, sure, you can just pip install, and you'll get a package compatible with your (system) python. But binary wheels will give you the same headaches -- so you're back to expecting your linux dstro to provide everything, which they don't :-( I understand that the IT folks want everything to come from their OS vendor -- they like that -- but it simply isn't practical for scipy-based web services. And once you've got most of your stack coming from another source, is it really a big deal for python to come from somewhere else also (and apache, and ???) -- conda at least is a technology that _can_ provide an integrated system that includes all this -- I don't think you're going to be pip-installling apache anytime soon! > But the design of conda is that it is intended to be a user-space > package-manager. mod_wsgi is installed via root/apache user, which is > siloed off from the user. I would have to (in theory) go and install conda > for the apache user and likely have to install a conda "apache" package and > mod_wsgi package. > This seems quite reasonable to me frankly. Plus, you can install conda centrally as well, and then the apache user can get access to it (bot not modify it) > I seriously doubt this would be an acceptable solution for many IT > administrators who would rather depend upon the upstream distributions who > are going to be very quick about getting updates out the door and are > updated automatically through yum or apt. > This is true -- but nothing to do with the technology -- it's a social problem. And the auto updates? Ha! the real problem with admins that want to use the system package managers is that they still insist you run python 2.6 for god's sake :-) > 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. > still true, of course, but it can address many more than pip. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
