Barry Wark wrote:
Some remaining issues:
- which SDK to build against. Leopard ships with a Python build
against the 10.5 SDK. It would be much easier, at least initially, for
us to produce binaries against the Leopard Python 2.5.
I would prefer that we use the Python binary from
On 11/30/07, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Wark wrote:
Some remaining issues:
- which SDK to build against. Leopard ships with a Python build
against the 10.5 SDK. It would be much easier, at least initially, for
us to produce binaries against the Leopard Python 2.5.
I
Even just a build of the last stable version will do it. Most people
(especially those who don't want to go through the hassle of compiling)
are going to be perfectly happy with a binary of the latest release.
Thanks!
Barry Wark wrote:
Using the gfortran from http://r.research.att.com/tools/,
Christopher Barker wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Official binaries intended for distribution from scipy.org or scipy.sf.net
should not be linked against FFTW or UMFPACK since they are GPLed.
Does that apply to binaries put up on pythonmac.org? It would be nice to
have a complete version
On 11/29/07, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Wark wrote:
Using the gfortran from http://r.research.att.com/tools/, it's trivial
to build a universal build from source. The instructions on scipy.org
won't lead you astray.
I will ask around at work. Perhaps we can start
Robert Kern wrote:
I would prefer that we use the Python binary from www.python.org. That should
work on 10.3.9+.
+1 -- there have always been enough issue with Apple;'s python that it's
best to just use another version -- one binary for 10.3.9 is the way
to go.
Official binaries intended
Hi guys,
does anyone of you happen to have sitting somewhere a DMG of a recent
version of SciPy compiled for MacOSX 10.4?
The SciPy webpage does not carry official releases and it is sending me
to the Scipy Superpack by Chris Fonnesbeck but that superpack seems to
be for intel cpu only. I
It's actually pretty simple to compile it yourself once you've
installed the latest Xcode from http://developer.apple.com and X11
from the OS X Tiger install disc. The instructions on Scipy's official
OS X installation page ( http://scipy.org/Installing_SciPy/Mac_OS_X )
are great for that. That
Joshua Lippai wrote:
You should probably email the guy and ask him to make
older versions of the superpack available, or at least the last PPC
one he made. Best of luck.
Even better would be Universal (fat) binaries -- I'm pretty sure this is
now possible, but haven't figured it out myself
On Nov 29, 2007 3:21 PM, Christopher Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua Lippai wrote:
You should probably email the guy and ask him to make
older versions of the superpack available, or at least the last PPC
one he made. Best of luck.
Even better would be Universal (fat) binaries --
Hi Josh, you're right I should probably email the guy directly.
I eventually managed to compile it installing the latest xcode, the
latest cctool to fix the __dso_handle bug, the gfortran and a couple of
other things. It took me an entire afternoon and now I don't have errors
on the the
Joshua Lippai wrote:
Chris Fonnesbeck used to distribute both PowerPC and Intel binaries,
but he can't compile them for PowerPC at all anymore because he no
longer has access to a PowerPC machine.
You can build fat binaries with a single machine -- either one. Whether
Chris wants to spend his
Using the gfortran from http://r.research.att.com/tools/, it's trivial
to build a universal build from source. The instructions on scipy.org
won't lead you astray.
I will ask around at work. Perhaps we can start building universal
scipy builds for distribution. Can anyone from the scipy devs
Barry Wark wrote:
Using the gfortran from http://r.research.att.com/tools/, it's trivial
to build a universal build from source. The instructions on scipy.org
won't lead you astray.
I will ask around at work. Perhaps we can start building universal
scipy builds for distribution. Can anyone
14 matches
Mail list logo
