Hi, On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote:
In article <CAH6Pt5o32Otdhk2Ms5Cy5Zo=Mn48H8X2WbsWK92etUb4MmrooQ@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote:
In article <CABL7CQjaCXp2GrtT8HVmaYAjRm0xmtn1Qt71WKdnbGq7dLU0cQ@mail.gmail.com>, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> 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