On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen wrote:
> > In article
> > ,
> > Ralf Gommers wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
> >> time-consuming. For OS X we need t
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Russell E. Owen wrote:
>> In article
>> ,
>> Matthew Brett wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen wrote:
>>> > In article
>>> > ,
>>> > Ralf Gommers wrot
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Russell E. Owen wrote:
> In article
> ,
> Matthew Brett wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen wrote:
>> > In article
>> > ,
>> > Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Building binaries for releases is current
In article
,
Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen wrote:
> > In article
> > ,
> > Ralf Gommers wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
> >> time-consuming. For OS X we need two different mach
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen wrote:
> In article
> ,
> Ralf Gommers 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
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen wrote:
> 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 o
In article
,
Ralf Gommers 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 com
From: numpy-discussion-boun...@scipy.org
[mailto:numpy-discussion-boun...@scipy.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Mandli
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:10 PM
To: Discussion of Numerical Python
Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] OS X binaries for releases
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KACVINSKY Tom
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Kyle Mandli wrote:
>
> This would be an appropriate time I suppose to say I am attempting to
> build numpy, scipy and matplotlib on 10.9. NDA of course prohibits me
> (unfortunately) from really discussing things but safe to say I would
> support "moving on". Th
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:17 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers 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 f
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KACVINSKY Tom wrote:
> llvm-gcc. You have to specify the right options which I can look up
> tomorrow when I'm back in the office. We don't invoke gcc directly, we use
> xcrun.
>
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:31, "David Cournapeau" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2
llvm-gcc. You have to specify the right options which I can look up tomorrow
when I'm back in the office. We don't invoke gcc directly, we use xcrun.
On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:31, "David Cournapeau"
mailto:courn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom
mailto:tom
Ralf,
Thanks for doing all this!
> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
> time-consuming.
It sure would be nice to clean that up.
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
> any
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom wrote:
> You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do.
>
With which compiler ?
David
>
> Tom
>
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Build
You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do.
Tom
On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau"
mailto:courn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
mailto:ralf.gomm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers 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 doe
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
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Gideon wrote:
> I noticed that 1.5.1 was released, and sourceforge is suggesting I use
> the package numpy-1.5.1-py2.6-python.org-macosx10.3.dmg. However, I
> have an OS X 10.6 machine.
>
> Can/should I use this binary?
>
Yes you can. The naming scheme correspond
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Gideon wrote:
> I noticed that 1.5.1 was released, and sourceforge is suggesting I use
> the package numpy-1.5.1-py2.6-python.org-macosx10.3.dmg. However, I
> have an OS X 10.6 machine.
>
> Can/should I use this binary?
>
> Should I just compile from source?
I su
I noticed that 1.5.1 was released, and sourceforge is suggesting I use
the package numpy-1.5.1-py2.6-python.org-macosx10.3.dmg. However, I
have an OS X 10.6 machine.
Can/should I use this binary?
Should I just compile from source?
___
NumPy-Discussion
20 matches
Mail list logo
