On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:45 AM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Numpy 1.8 is about ready for an rc1, which brings up the question of which binary builds so put up on sourceforge. For Windows maybe
32 bit windows, python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, compiled with MSVC 64 bit windows, python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, compiled with MSVC, linked with MKL
Are we not running into problems with scipy? scipy would need to use the same libraries, AFAIU (given Fortran and maybe C compatibilities)
Indeed. If numpy goes MSVC + MKL, then scipy should go the same way. Some other options to go to MinGW 4.x are being discussed on https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/2829.
Is it actually legal to distribute scipy linked with MKL? Scipy still includes GPL code (umfpack), and shipping MKL+GPL code integrated into a single download is extremely dicey... (this goes also for any downstream users who might package precompiled numpy/scipy with other packages).
Wait, we don't includes UMFPACK. We can optionally link against it, but that's not done for any of our binary (unless this was changed recently ?)
(In either case I think we ought to just bite the bullet and get MinGW 4.x running as a supported option, even if we don't use it for the official binaries and even if this requires some unaesthetic hacks. I bet we'd have more windows developers if there was an accessible way to build on windows...)
Mingw 4 already works for compilation, no ? If not, that's definitely something to fix. The discussion around binary distribution should not preclude supporting it for people who want it. David
-n _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion