Hi, On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Can we defer the Scipy build until after the Numpy build?
That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I must say I'm a little confused as to how we're going to make the decisions here.
How about: attempt to reach consensus? David's concern on DLLs hasn't been addressed yet, nor has mine on packages being unavailable. I was actually still answering another of your emails, but I can't seem to reply fast enough.
Right - consensus is good - but at the moment I keep getting lost because the arguments seem to shift and get lost, and sometimes they are not made. So, here is the summary as I understand it, please correct if I am wrong I think we agree that: 1) Having a binary installer for numpy Windows 64 bit is desirable 2) It is desirable to have a matching binary installer for Scipy as soon as possible 3) It is preferable to build with free tools 4) It is acceptable to use non-free tools 5) The build will need to do some run-time linking to MKL and / or mingw 6) It is preferable that the build should be fully automated 7) It is preferable that one person can build all numpy / scipy builds The points of potential disagreement are: a) If we cannot build Scipy now, it may or may not be acceptable to release numpy now. I think it is, you (Ralf) think it isn't, we haven't discussed that. It may not come up. b) It may or may not be acceptable for someone other than Ondrej to be responsible for the Windows 64-bit builds. I think it should be, if necessary, we haven't really discussed that, it may not come up. c) It may or may not be acceptable for the build to be only partially automated. Ditto. d) It may or may not be acceptable to add the DLL directory to the PATH on numpy import. David says not, Christophe disagrees, we haven't really discussed that. Is that right? Cheers, Matthew