In article <51FBB996.5030902@...31...>,
Michael Droettboom <mdroe@...31...>
wrote:
Ludwig, this is one of the most entertaining e-mails I've read in a
while, and I think your arguments make a lot of sense.
Given infinite developer resources, do you think there's any logic to
providing *both* system Python and python.org based binaries? How much
additional work would that be?
I think the big problems to solve now is
(a) get to the bottom of why the new installer is breaking existing
installations of dateutil and pytz. Russell: even though they are not
currently working, could you provide what you have so that others can
have a look?
I put the installer here (and announced it earlier -- I thought in this
thread):
<http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/python/>
I do not consider it safe because:
- It may trash existing installations of dateutil and pytz (especially
those installed by the matplotlib 1.2.1 binary installer)
- It does not include pytz, dateutil and six (unlike the 1.2.1 binary
installer), so it's a real pain to use
- It is missing its unit tests and so is poorly tested
- It also appears that pylab is broken (something I only recently
discovered)
Unless somebody figures out how to include the dependencies, I think a
Mac binary installer is a nonstarter.
-- Russell
P.S. the Mac binary installer for numpy used to be easy to find. I was
quite dismayed to find how buried it had become when I went looking for
it a week or two ago.
Is this down to the redesign of the SciPy site. If so, blame me ;-). I
felt, and others seemed to agree, that setting up individual packages
separately wasn't a route that we wanted to promote to newcomers, so the
new site emphasises all-in-one installers that get you the whole Scipy
Stack (numpy, scipy, matplotlib, etc.) in one go.
Thomas
···
On 7 August 2013 12:54, Russell E. Owen <rowen@...748...> wrote:
P.S. the Mac binary installer for numpy used to be easy to find. I was
quite dismayed to find how buried it had become when I went looking for
it a week or two ago.
All-in-one installers are fine, but I don't think it should exclude access
to the individual installers as well (for the intermediate users, for
example).
Ben Root
···
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Thomas Kluyver <thomas@...1071...> wrote:
On 7 August 2013 12:54, Russell E. Owen <rowen@...748...> wrote:
P.S. the Mac binary installer for numpy used to be easy to find. I was
quite dismayed to find how buried it had become when I went looking for
it a week or two ago.
Is this down to the redesign of the SciPy site. If so, blame me ;-). I
felt, and others seemed to agree, that setting up individual packages
separately wasn't a route that we wanted to promote to newcomers, so the
new site emphasises all-in-one installers that get you the whole Scipy
Stack (numpy, scipy, matplotlib, etc.) in one go.
Thomas
I am glad that the numpy and scipy projects are still creating binary installers for python.org python, but it is a serious problem for users of the matplotlib binary installers that they are so difficult to find.
If a user googles for “numpy download” then the user finds this page
<http://www.numpy.org>
and the link Getting Numpy points to this page
<http://www.scipy.org/install.html>
which does not the binary installers at all.
I agree that most users should probably use Anaconda or its ilk, but I think it would be good to mention the Mac and Windows python.org binary installers quite prominently after that.
– Russell
···
On 7 August 2013 12:54, Russell E. Owen <rowen@…748…> wrote:
P.S. the Mac binary installer for numpy used to be easy to find. I was
quite dismayed to find how buried it had become when I went looking for
it a week or two ago.
Is this down to the redesign of the SciPy site. If so, blame me ;-). I felt, and others seemed to agree, that setting up individual packages separately wasn’t a route that we wanted to promote to newcomers, so the new site emphasises all-in-one installers that get you the whole Scipy Stack (numpy, scipy, matplotlib, etc.) in one go.
Thomas