On 4 December 2013 21:10, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > == Regarding conda == > > In terms of providing an answer to the question "Where does conda fit > in the scheme of packaging tools?", my conclusion from the thread is > that once a couple of security related issues are fixed (think PyPI > before the rubygems.org compromise for the current state of conda's > security model), and once the Python 3.3 compatibility issue is > addressed on Windows, it would be reasonable to recommend it as one of > the current options for getting hold of pre-built versions of the > scientific Python stack. > > I think this is important enough to warrant a "NumPy and the > Scientific Python stack" section in the user guide (with Linux distro > packages, Windows installers and conda all discussed as options): > > https://bitbucket.org/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/issue/37/add-a-dedicated-numpy-and-the-scientific
I created a draft of this new section at https://bitbucket.org/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/pull-request/12/recommendations-for-numpy-et-al/diff Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
