[IPython-dev] Docker IPython
jsw at fnal.gov
Tue Aug 5 12:11:38 EDT 2014
If any substantial fraction of your users will want
scipy/numpy/matplotlib, I would (almost, see below) recommend conda.
Conda was, as I understand it, created because pip left too many
barriers in place against the use of scipy/numpy etc. Specifically,
experience indicated that many people who might otherwise have casually
investigated scientific python tools did not do so because pip required
them to have a proper FORTRAN development environment set up, and they
did not wish to figure out how to do this.
Conda distributes binaries rather than exclusively source, which is an
effective way around this sort of problem.
OTOH, a pure-python package that is hosted on PyPI (and therefore
installable via pip) can (usually) be trivially made into a conda
package via `conda skeleton pypi <package-name>`. So making pip-style
packages tends to get you conda packages for almost free.
On 08/05/2014 11:01 AM, Andrew Gibiansky wrote:
> Pip please :) Conda is fairly non-standard in the Python ecosystem in my
> experience; it's common for data analysis and IPython sort of things,
> but pip is the more common packaging standard. Though pip is less
> powerful than conda, it has the benefits that /every/ Python developer
> knows its use, and I think it's much more appropriate for the base
> IPython notebook docker file.
> Again, this is from the view that I want the IPython notebook docker
> build as a /base/ for something non-Python related; so I /just/ want the
> bare essentials required for IPython itself, and nothing more. Conda
> seems like it is adding more than you really need, whereas pip does
> that. It may make sense to have the Python-based derived notebook (the
> one that includes scipy and so on) to use Conda, though. (Not sure how
> well pip and conda mix.)
> -- Andrew
More information about the IPython-dev