matplotlib Mac binary that works with python.org python and older MacOS X?

In article
<AANLkTilYAdPPQcVZdXcHqdNdNZQ2RM2J91kTr60IF68K@...288...>,

> Russell E. Owen wrote:
>> I made binaries (on Mac OS X 10.5) using my instructions:
>> <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/BuildingMatplotlibForMac.htm
>> >
>>
>> They are available from here, for now:
>> <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/python/>
>>
>> please test them.
>
> Thanks Russell, this looks great -- it seems to be working on my OS-X
> 10.5 PPC box.
>
>> If they work then I hope the matplotlib folks will
>> consider serving them as official "for 3rd-party Python" binaries
>> (as opposed to the current ones they are serving, which are for Apple's
>> Python).
>
> +1 -- these really should be the official ones (nothing wring with
> serving up the 10.6 ones too, if they are well labeled)

I'm happy to upload them, how do you suggest they should all be named?

Great!

I suggest that the current file named:
  matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.6-macosx-10.6-universal.egg
be renamed to something like:
  matplotlib-0.99.3-ApplePython2.6-macosx-10.6.egg

This is based on two things:
- It needs a clear indicator that it requires Apple's python 2.6. Note
that this is very unusual (I know of no other binaries built like this)
so the name really needs to emphasize this
- I'm not sure what universal meant (clearly it's not Intel+PPC, which
is the old meaning of the term). I suggest removing it or replacing it
with something clearer. If you mean it has both 32-bit and 64-bit
version then perhaps you could say i32-i64.

My binaries are presently named:
matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.5-macosx10.4-2010-06-30.dmg
matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.6-macosx10.4-2010-06-30.dmg

The easy thing is to simply remove the date; the name then matches the
scheme used by numpy and scipy so it will probably be clear to most
users. However, I do realize it may be a bit ambiguous since you also
serve the other version, so you could indicate python.org python in some
way, e.g.:
...-python_org_python26

You might consider whether you are planning to continue building
binaries that work with Apple's python. Personally I am never in favor
of using Apple's python for several reasons:
- Apple Python is part of the operating system, so it's safer to treat
it as "do not touch".
- It makes packaging an application impossible; the application cannot
include Python and so will not run on a variety of versions of Mac OS X
- Some packages cannot be upgraded (for instance Twisted) because Apple
already provides a version.
- Apple never seems to update Python, so you don't get bug fixes.

However, at present I don't know if there is a Python 2.6 that is both
compatible with older versions of Mac OS X and is built with 64-bit
support. If there is not, then we'll need for two binary installers
anyway (though I'd prefer both were for 3rd party versions of Python if
possible).

-- Russell

···

John Hunter <jdh2358@...287...> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Christopher Barker > <Chris.Barker@...259...> wrote:

Russell E. Owen wrote:

However, at present I don't know if there is a Python 2.6 that is both compatible with older versions of Mac OS X and is built with 64-bit support.

FWIW, I think the official 2.7 builds will be Intel32+Intel64+PPC32

I don't know if Ronald is going to back=port any of that for 2.6, but I kind of doubt it.

-Chris

···

--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception

Chris.Barker@...259...