On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > 2) continue to support those users fairly poorly, and at substantial > > ongoing cost > > I'm curious what the cost is for this poor support -- throw the source > up on PyPi, and we're done. The cost comes in when trying to build > binaries... > I'm sure Nathaniel means the cost to users of failed installs and of numpy losing users because of that, not the cost of building binaries. > Option 1 would require overwhelming consensus of the community, which > > for better or worse is presumably not going to happen while > > substantial portions of that community are still using pip/PyPI. > > Are they? Which community are we talking about? The community I'd like > to target are web developers that aren't doing what they think of as > "scientific" applications, but could use a little of the SciPy stack. > These folks are committed to pip, and are very reluctant to introduce > a difficult dependency. Binary wheels would help these folks, but > that is not a community that exists yet ( or it's small, anyway) > > All that being said, I'd be happy to see binary wheels for the core > SciPy stack on PyPi. It would be nice for people to be able to do a > bit with Numpy or pandas, it MPL, without having to jump ship to a > whole new way of doing things. > This is indeed exactly why we need binary wheels. Efforts to provide those will not change our strong recommendation to our users that they're better off using a scientific Python distribution. Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
