On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Peter < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Ralf Gommers > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Peter > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I believe the problem has been been 64 bit fortran for ATLAS, the > mingw > >> > version has/had problems. A plain build using the MS compilers works > >> > fine without ATLAS. > >> > > >> > Chuck > >> > >> Do you think there would be interest/demand for official non-ATLAS > >> binaries as a short term solution? > > > > I doubt this would add much to what's currently available unofficially. > > But it would be "official", which counts for something - especially in > commercial setting. > > >> > >> I'm thinking also of 3rd party Python libraries that use NumPy, and if > >> they/we can ship a win64 installer if NumPy doesn't. > > > > This is no problem of course. If I were you though, I would first > consider > > if it's not better to refer your users to the Enthought version, or the > > builds provided by Christoph Gohlke for example. > > We're currently pointing people on 64 bit Windows towards Christoph > Gohlke's unofficial builds. I'd be quite happy if Christoph's 64bit NumPy > installer was blessed as official and distributed via the NumPy website > (but there may be technical issues I'm unaware of). > <http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion> The plain builds don't work with scipy as I think you know, which IMHO means they should not be official. The MKL ones should not be official because they're non-free. That said, if others feel that plain official builds are useful *and* someone steps up to create and troubleshoot them, then of course that's fine with me. Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
