David Cournapeau wrote: > I don't really care, as long as there is only one. Maintaining binaries > for every python out there is too time consuming. Given that mac os X > is the easiest platform to build numpy/scipy on,
I assume you meant NOT the easiest? ;-) > that's not something i am interested in. quite understandable. >> There are ways to build an installer that puts it in a place that both >> can find it -- wxPython does this -- but I'm not so sure that's a good idea. > > there is the problem of compatibility. I am not sure whether Apple > python and python.org are ABI compatible In theory, yes, and in practice, it seems to be working for wxPython. However, I agree that it's a bit risky. I'm at the PyCon MacPython sprint as we type -- and apparently Apple's is linked with the 10.5 sdk, whereas python.org's is linked against the 10.3 sdk -- so there could be issues. > I will thus build binaries > against python.org binaries (I still have to find a way to guarantee > this in the build script, but that should not be too difficult). Hardcoding the path to python should work: PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.5/bin/python > My experience is that every choice presented to the user makes for > more problem. And that just takes too much time. I prefer spending > time making a few good installers rather than many half baked. I agree -- and most packages I use seem to supporting python.org exclusively for binaries. > Ideally, we should have something which could install on every python > version, but oh well, well, I guess that's the promise of easy_install -- but someone would have to build all the binary eggs... and there were weird issues with universal eggs on the mac that I understand have been fixed in 2.6, but not 2.5 Thanks for all your work on this, -Chris _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
