On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Jaffe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 22:11, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> The binaries will still be built against python.org Python, so there > >> shouldn't be an issue here. Same for building from source. > > > > My point was that it's nice to be able to have it build with an out of > > teh box wetup.py with accelerated LAPACK and all... If whoever is > > building binaries wants to get fancy, great. > > Yes, please. The current system does seem to work for at least some of > us. And, if I understand the thread in the scipy mailing list, it's not > actually clear that there's a bug, as opposed to incompatible fortran > ABIs (which doesn't seem like a bug to me). > > But I guess the most important thing would be that it can be used with > apple or python.org Python builds (my reading of some of the suggestions > would be requiring one of homebrew/fink/macports), No we should support all pythons; python.org being the one supported by our binary installers. Ralf > preferably out-of-the-box -- even if that meant restricting to prebuilt > binaries. > Being able to run non-obscure installers (i.e., from the main python.org > and scipy.org sites) for Python + numpy + scipy + matplotlib and get > optimized versions would be sufficient. >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
