On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Kurt Smith wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Robert Kern<[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 2009-08-14 13:42 PM, Kurt Smith wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Robert >>> Kern<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 2009-08-14 11:37 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>>> >>>>> As for fparser, I think we can keep PSF out of it for now: >>>>> >>>>> fwrap depends on Cython and fparser, but Cython itself will >>>>> never depend >>>>> on either >>>>> >>>>> At least for the time being it's more a matter of shipping >>>>> fparser and >>>>> fwrap with the default Cython download (in the Tools dir). I can >>>>> definitely see Cython itself being included into Python's >>>>> stdlib without >>>>> fwrap following along (as nobody outside of science use Fortran >>>>> anyway). >>>> >>>> Hmmm. Are you sure you don't just want to distribute fwrap as a >>>> separate >>>> project, then? Personally, I will always prefer a second package >>>> over an >>>> optional component. If I had a project that used fwrap to build, >>>> I would want my >>>> prerequisite installation instructions to be this: >>>> >>>> 1. Install Cython. http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Cython >>>> 2. Install fwrap. http://pypi.python.org/pypi/fwrap >>>> >>>> rather than this: >>>> >>>> 1. Download the source tarball of Cython. http:// >>>> pypi.python.org/pypi/Cython >>>> 2. Install Cython using "python setup.py install" >>>> 3. cd Tools/fwrap/ >>>> 4. Install fwrap using "python setup.py install" >>>> >>>> With the latter, there will inevitably be some Linux >>>> distribution that will put >>>> both Cython and fwrap into their python-cython package and some >>>> who won't. >>> >>> Good points. Dag and I talked about packaging fwrap separately once >>> it stabilizes. Perhaps we should just make it its own package from >>> the start. This would alleviate the licensing issues and 'core >>> Cython' could be pure Apache (presuming Pearu doesn't want to >>> relicense fparser for fwrap under Apache). >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> I would think that it would be better to start off separate while >> it stabilizes. >> If you don't intend for a Cython release to contain it, why bother >> putting it in >> the Cython repo in the first place? Mercurial repos are cheap. :-) > > This aspect of things (where fwrap belongs) has been evolving over the > summer, as has fwrap's 'intent'. Is it primarily a tool to use with > Cython, allowing one to wrap external Fortran code along with C, as > initially intended? Or is it its own self-standing thing, like an > updated f2py? fwrap is progressing towards the latter, and this > thread is good to thresh out the best solution. > > fparser has been a tremendous help, but it needs to stabilize, too. > If we knew then what we know now, and all that...
Perhaps the question would be better answered if I had a better idea of what, exactly, fwrap was. I assume you have slides from your scipy talk? - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
