On Dec 12, 2007 2:58 AM, Christopher Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > For me it is: when using a MS compiler, you are not forcing people to use a non open source product (except maybe the C runtime). What will happen if we offer binaries using MKL ? The ATLAS will not be tested anymore on windows, it forces every developer to use the MKL to support it.... At least, now, with atlas problems, I can reproduce the problems. With the MKL, not so much.
cheers, David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion