David Cournapeau wrote: > 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.
I agree. The official-official Win32 binaries (numpy-<version>-py<pyversion>.msi and numpy-<version>-py<pyversion>-win32.egg on the SourceForge donwload page) should be unencumbered. Other versions can be on the download page, too, but they should be named differently, like numpy-mkl-<version>-... . -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion