On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:29 AM, David Warde-Farley wrote:
> On 5-Jan-10, at 7:02 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>
>>> Pretty sure the python.org binaries are 32-bit only. I still think
>>> it's sensible to prefer the
>>
>> waiting the rest of this sentence.. ;-)
>
> I had meant to say 'sensible to
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:24 AM, David Warde-Farley wrote:
> On 5-Jan-10, at 7:18 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>
>> If distutils/setuptools could identify the python version properly,
>> then
>> binary eggs and easy-install could be a solution -- but that's a
>> mess,
>> too.
>
>
> Long live toy
On 2010-01-07, David Warde-Farley wrote:
> On 5-Jan-10, at 7:02 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>>> I'm not really a fan of packages polluting /usr/local, I'd rather the
>>> tree appear /opt/packagename
>>
>> well, /opt has kind of been co-opted by macports.
>
> I'd forgotten about that.
It's not
On 5-Jan-10, at 7:02 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>> Pretty sure the python.org binaries are 32-bit only. I still think
>> it's sensible to prefer the
>
> waiting the rest of this sentence.. ;-)
I had meant to say 'sensible to prefer the Python.org version' though
in reality I'm a little miffe
On 5-Jan-10, at 7:18 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> If distutils/setuptools could identify the python version properly,
> then
> binary eggs and easy-install could be a solution -- but that's a
> mess,
> too.
Long live toydist! :)
David
___
NumP
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Christopher Barker
wrote:
> NOTE: cc-d to the pythonmac list from the numpy list -- this is really a
> Mac issue. It's a discussion of what/how to produce binaries of numpy
> for OS-X
>
>
> David Cournapeau wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Christopher Barke
NOTE: cc-d to the pythonmac list from the numpy list -- this is really a
Mac issue. It's a discussion of what/how to produce binaries of numpy
for OS-X
David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Christopher Barker
> wrote:
>
>> If distutils/setuptools could identify the python
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Christopher Barker
wrote:
> If distutils/setuptools could identify the python version properly, then
> binary eggs and easy-install could be a solution -- but that's a mess,
> too.
It would not solve the problem, really. Two same versions of python
does not imply
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:22 AM, David Warde-Farley wrote:
>
> On 5-Jan-10, at 6:01 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>
>
>> As the 2.6 series is binary compatible, you can build a single
>> installer
>> that will work with both
I don't think that's true. 2.6.x are compatible with each other iif
they
Christopher Barker wrote:
> OK -- what about simply punting and doing two builds: one 32 bit, and
> one 64 bit. I wonder if we need 64bit PPC at all? I know I'm running 64
> bit hardware, but never ran a 64 bit OS on it -- I wonder if anyone is?
Oh, I think this approach may be completely egg-in
David Warde-Farley wrote:
> AFAIK, the System Python in 10.6 is 64-bit capable (but not in the
> same way as Ron Oussoren's 4-way universal build script does it).
right -- I'm not sure if it's useful, though, I don't' think there is a
64 bit interpreter, for instance. But maybe that was the o
On Jan 5, 2010, at 6:22 PM, David Warde-Farley wrote:
>
> On 5-Jan-10, at 6:01 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>
>> The python.org python is the best one to support -- Apple has never
>> upgraded a python, has often shipped a broken version, and has
>> provided
>> different versions with each OS-
On 5-Jan-10, at 6:01 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> The python.org python is the best one to support -- Apple has never
> upgraded a python, has often shipped a broken version, and has
> provided
> different versions with each OS-X version. If we support the
> python.org
> python for OS-X 10
Pierre GM wrote:
> Ah OK, my bad. Now, why should it be that different ? Why rely on a
> second Python to install numpy from a dmg?
OS-X has a way of hard coding paths, so a given installer is designed to
go in one place, and one place only.
The python.org python is the best one to support -- Ap
On Jan 5, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> Pierre GM wrote:
>
> Pierre,
>
> He is installing using the binary package installer, not installing from
> source.
Ah OK, my bad. Now, why should it be that different ? Why rely on a second
Python to install numpy from a dmg ? If it's a matter
Eric Firing wrote:
>> I'm having an odd problem with the package installer for numpy 1.4.0.
>> It complains:
>>
>> numpy 1.4.0 can't be installed on this disk. numpy requires System
>> Python 2.6 to install.
>
> I think the problem is that the message is misleading; it should be
> saying you need
Pierre GM wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>> neil weisenfeld wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm having an odd problem with the package installer for numpy 1.4.0.
>>> It complains:
>>>
>>> numpy 1.4.0 can't be installed on this disk. numpy requires System
>>> Python 2.6 to instal
On Jan 5, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> neil weisenfeld wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm having an odd problem with the package installer for numpy 1.4.0.
>> It complains:
>>
>> numpy 1.4.0 can't be installed on this disk. numpy requires System
>> Python 2.6 to install.
>
> I think the probl
neil weisenfeld wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm having an odd problem with the package installer for numpy 1.4.0.
> It complains:
>
> numpy 1.4.0 can't be installed on this disk. numpy requires System
> Python 2.6 to install.
I think the problem is that the message is misleading; it should be
saying y
Hi all,
I'm having an odd problem with the package installer for numpy 1.4.0.
It complains:
numpy 1.4.0 can't be installed on this disk. numpy requires System
Python 2.6 to install.
I'm running a stock system with a stock python, so I'm not sure why
the test is failing. Any ideas how to debug
20 matches
Mail list logo
