On 6 December 2013 13:54, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
It's probably worth listing each of the full scientific Python distributions on this page (or just linking to it), rather than just Anaconda: http://www.scipy.org/install.html Oscar _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig