On 6 December 2013 17:21, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> With that approach, the existing wheel model would work (no need for a >> variant system), and numpy installations could be freely moved between >> machines (or shared via a network directory). > > Hmm, taking a compile flag and encoding it in the package layout seems like > a fundamentally wrong approach. And in order to not litter the source tree > and all installs with lots of empty dirs, the changes to __init__.py will > have to be made at build time based on whether you're building Windows > binaries or something else. Path manipulation is usually fragile as well. So > I suspect this is not going to fly.
In the absence of the perfect solution (i.e. picking the right variant out of no SSE, SSE2, SSE3 automatically), would it be a reasonable compromise to standardise on SSE2 as "lowest acceptable common denominator"? Users with no sse capability at all or that wanted to take advantage of the SSE3 optimisations, would need to grab one of the Windows installers or something from conda, but for a lot of users, a "pip install numpy" that dropped the SSE2 version onto their system would be just fine, and a much lower barrier to entry than "well, first install this other packaging system that doesn't interoperate with your OS package manager at all...". Are we letting perfect be the enemy of better, here? (punting on the question for 6 months and seeing if we can deal with the install-time variant problem in pip 1.6 is certainly an option, but if we don't *need* to wait that long...) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
