In article <CAH6Pt5o32Otdhk2Ms5Cy5Zo=mn48h8x2wbswk92etub4mmr...@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen <ro...@uw.edu> wrote: > > In article > > <cabl7cqjacxp2grtt8hvmayajrm0xmtn1qt71wkdnbgq7dlu...@mail.gmail.com>, > > Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and > >> time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still > >> provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this > >> anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just > >> that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 > >> came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the > >> download stats at > >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this). > >> > >> Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 > >> OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long > >> time - support it but no binaries. > >> > >> So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal > >> binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. > >> We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a > >> hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release > >> (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 > >> and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful. > >> > >> Any concerns, objections? > > > > I am in strong agreement. > > > > I'll be interested to learn how you make binary installers for python > > 3.x because the standard version of bdist_mpkg will not do it. I have > > heard of two other projects (forks or variants of bdist_mpkg) that will, > > but I have no idea of either is supported. > > I think I'm the owner of one of the forks; I supporting it, but I > should certainly make a release soon too. That sounds promising. Can you suggest a non-released commit that is stable enough to try, or should we wait for a release? Also, is there a way to combine multiple packages into one binary installer? (matplotib used to include python-dateutil, pytz and six, but 1.3 does not). > > I have been able to building packages on 10.8 using > > MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.6 that will run on 10.6, so it will probably > > work. However I have run into several odd problems over the years > > building a binary installer on a newer system only to find it won't work > > on older systems for various reasons. Thus my personal recommendation is > > that you build on 10.6 if you want an installer that reliably works for > > 10.6 and later. I keep an older computer around for this reason. In fact > > that is one good reason to drop support for ancient operating systems > > and PPC. > > I'm sitting next to a 10.6 machine you are welcome to use; just let me > know, I'll give you login access. Thank you. Personally I keep an older laptop I keep around that can run 10.6 (and even 10.4 and 10.5, which was handy when I made binaries that supported 10.3.9 and later -- no need for that these days), so I don't need it, but somebody else working on matplotlib binaries might. -- Russell _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion