1.3.0rc5 tagged

In article <51EDB794.9010000@...31...>,
Michael Droettboom <mdroe@...31...>

> In article <51E9681B.3010005@...31...>,
> Michael Droettboom <mdroe@...31...>
> wrote:
>> At long last, I have a 1.3.0rc5 tagged. I really hope to the software
>> deities that this is the last rc before final.
>> If you wouldn't mind creating and posting the binaries, I'll make an
>> announcment on matplotlib-users, give this a week and then put final out.
> I have uploaded a binary for MacOS X 10.6 and later.
> There were a few oddities this time around:
> - matplotlib now requires pyparsing. I don't remember that being a
> requirement before -- even for previous 1.3 candidates.

It's been a requirement for time immemorial, but only in 1.3.0 (all of
the release candidates) has it become an external dependency. What error
occurred that suggests something changed?

I suspect what changed is you don't include it anymore (but I would have
expected that change in earlier 1.3.0 prereleases).

- I had a lot of trouble with matplotlib complaining that dateutil was

> not present, even though it was in my site-packages. So I tried to
> reinstall it using pip install -U dateutil. Unfortunately pip has never
> heard of "dateutil". After some searching I realized the package name is
> actually "python-dateutil" (and not dateutils, which is a different
> package, alas). Even then, I had to install/upgrade it twice -- for some
> reason matplotlib couldn't find it at first. Very puzzling. I have no
> idea what was going on, but also didn't want to spend a lot of time
> trying to debug it.

Does `python setup.py install` (of matplotlib) not install it
automatically? We are bearing all the pain of setuptools in order for
that to happen, so if it's not, that's a real problem.

I am building a binary installer, so I don't use "python setup.py
install". I use bdist_mpkg, which presumably does something similar to
"python setup.py build" and packages the results (without installing

In any case, I need to know which packages matplotlib needs so I can
warn users to install them in the binary installer's ReadMe file. The
list is rather long. I miss having this stuff included in matplotlib. At
this point I know of the following (aside from numpy):
- python-dateutil (unfortunately matplotlib complains about missing
"dateutil" if it's absent; it would help to give the name of the package
as known by pip, rather than what is imported)
- pytz
- six
- pyparsing

> - I get a few unit tests failures, including a slew of
> DeprecationWarnings about Operator '<<' that I don't remember seeing
> before. I have appended the test log.

That's probably related to pyparsing 2.0.1 (released just this week).
I'd like to fix those warnings, but then we'd have to *require*
pyparsing 2.0.1 (no earlier Python 2.x release of pyparsing includes an
alternative syntax). I think pyparsing moved too quickly on this one,
but I'm not sure what we can do about it. It does make me long for the
days when we included our dependencies so we have some control over this

Great. This sounds innocuous.

> - I first tried building on 10.8 and running on 10.6 (since that's much
> simpler for me). Unfortunately it doesn't work; on 10.6 it acts as if
> the unit tests themselves aren't part of the package. I have no idea
> why. I appended a log snippet showing the basic message, but I haven't
> looked into it further. This sounds worth spending some time tracking
> down.

That's a puzzler. I've seen that crop up on Travis erratically as well,
but not consistently. It's not clear what's going on here -- will have
to think on it.

I'm not sure how to diagnose this, but if you have any ideas, let me
know. (Though I should probably read the rest of the messages on this
thread before saying that.)

-- Russell


On 07/22/2013 05:59 PM, Russell E. Owen wrote: