David Cournapeau wrote: >> I think this idea is the way to go (maybe along with an ACML build, but my >> limited testing seemed to indicate that MKL works on AMD CPUs). >> > I am personally totally against it. It is one thing to support > proprietary software, that's quite another to build our official > binaries against it. I consider myself far from any kind of open > source zealot, but that would be crossing a line I would much prefer > avoiding to cross.
Interesting -- I DO consider myself a kind of Open Source Zealot -- and this doesn't bother me a bit. It would bother me a LOT if numpy could only be built against this lib, and not an Open Source one -- but I don't see this as any different than providing a binary built with the Microsoft compiler. The way it "SHOULD" be done is the OS vendor should provide these libs -- Apple does, and most of the Linux Distros do (with varying success). If MS could just cut a deal with Intel and AMD, we could count on all versions of Windows having an optimized lib-- oh well, one can dream! I'm not sure the licensing really makes it possible though. Numpy isn't exactly an application, but rather a development tool, so I'm not sure how Intel would feel about it being distributed. Also, it looks like they require each "developer" to have license, rather than only the person building the final binary -- so having the one person building the final distro may not be kosher. IANAL. -Chris -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
