[Numpy-discussion] testing binary installer for OS X

[Ralf Gommers]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:17 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:44 AM,  <josef.pktd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think I mixed up some things then,
> > scipy 0.7.1 cython files should be regenerated with the latest cython
> > release so that it doesn't check the sizeof anymore.
> > Then, a scipy 0.7.1 build against numpy 1.3 would also work without
> > recompiling against numpy 1.4.1
> >
> > Is this correct?
>
> Yes, this is correct. It is impossible to create a numpy 1.4.x which
> is compatible with the *existing* scipy binary, because several
> structures have been growing (not only because of datetime).
>
> The cython changes have already been incorporated in scipy 0.7.x
> branch, so in the end, what should be done is a new 0.7.2 scipy binary
> built against numpy 1.3.0, which will then be compatible with both
> numpy 1.3 and 1.4 binaries,
>
> Hmm, I remember you saying this a while ago and I'm sure you're right. But
it got lost in the noise, and like Charles I thought the aim was to produce
a 1.4.x binary compatible with what's out there now. This is also what you
said on Wednesday:

<quote>
So here is how I see things in the near future for release:
- compile a simple binary installer for mac os x and windows (no need
for doc or multiple archs) from 1.4.x
- test this with the scipy binary out there (running the full test
suites), ideally other well known packages as well (matplotlib,
pytables, etc...).
<unquote>

So now this seems to be impossible. I'm not so sure then we're not confusing
even more confusing with yet another incompatible binary...

Cheers,
Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100227/567813a4/attachment.html>