Hi, On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Russell E. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > In article > <CAH6Pt5o32Otdhk2Ms5Cy5Zo=mn48h8x2wbswk92etub4mmr...@mail.gmail.com>, > Matthew Brett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> > In article >> > <cabl7cqjacxp2grtt8hvmayajrm0xmtn1qt71wkdnbgq7dlu...@mail.gmail.com>, >> > Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and >> >> time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still >> >> provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this >> >> anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just >> >> that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 >> >> came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the >> >> download stats at >> >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this). >> >> >> >> Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of >> >> 2.6 >> >> OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a >> >> long >> >> time - support it but no binaries. >> >> >> >> So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal >> >> binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. >> >> We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a >> >> hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release >> >> (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on >> >> 10.8 >> >> and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful. >> >> >> >> Any concerns, objections? >> > >> > I am in strong agreement. >> > >> > I'll be interested to learn how you make binary installers for python >> > 3.x because the standard version of bdist_mpkg will not do it. I have >> > heard of two other projects (forks or variants of bdist_mpkg) that will, >> > but I have no idea of either is supported. >> >> I think I'm the owner of one of the forks; I supporting it, but I >> should certainly make a release soon too. > > That sounds promising. Can you suggest a non-released commit that is > stable enough to try, or should we wait for a release?
It has hardly changed since the Python 3 port - the current head should be fine, I'm using it for our installers. But I will get to a release soon. > Also, is there a way to combine multiple packages into one binary > installer? (matplotib used to include python-dateutil, pytz and six, but > 1.3 does not). Well - yes - by hacking. I did something like this to make huge scientific python installer for a course I'm teaching: https://github.com/matthew-brett/reginald Basically, you build the mpkg files for each thing you want to install, then copy the sub-packages from the mpkg into a mpkg megapackage (see the README for what I mean). I should really automate this better - it was pretty easy to build a large and useful distribution this way. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
