[Numpy-discussion] Future directions for SciPy in light of meeting at Berkeley

Peter Verveer verveer at embl-heidelberg.de
Wed Mar 9 03:00:44 EST 2005

> Proposal (just an idea to start discussion):
> Subdivide scipy into several super packages that install cleanly but 
> can also be installed separately.  Implement a CPAN-or-yum-like 
> repository and query system for installing scientific packages.

+1, I would be far more inclined to contribute if we could agree on 
such a structure.

> Extra sub-packages: named in a hierarchy to be determined and probably 
> each dependent on a variety of scipy-sub-packages.
> I haven't fleshed this thing out yet as you can tell.  I'm mainly 
> talking publicly to spur discussion.  The basic idea is that we should 
> force ourselves to distribute scipy in separate packages.  This would 
> force us to implement a yum-or-CPAN-like package repository, so that 
> we define the interface as to how an additional module could be 
> developed by someone, even maintained separately (with a different 
> license), and simply inserted into an intelligent point under the 
> scipy infrastructure.

Two comments:

1) We should consider the issue of licenses. For instance: the python 
wrappers for GSL and FFTW probably need to be GPL-licensed. These 
packages definitely need to be part of a repository. There needs to be 
some kind of a category for such packages, as their license is more 

2) If there is going to be a repository structure it should provide for 
packages that can be installed independently of a scipy hierarchy. 
Packages that only require a dependency on the Numeric core should not 
require scipy_core. That makes sense if Numeric3 ever gets into the 
core Python. Such packages could (and probably should) also live in a 
dual scipy namespace.


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list