[Numpy-discussion] 64 bit Windows installers for NumPy?
ralf.gommers at googlemail.com
Sat Jan 22 12:43:42 EST 2011
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Peter <
numpy-discussion at maubp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Ralf Gommers
> <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Peter
> > <numpy-discussion at maubp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris
> >> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I believe the problem has been been 64 bit fortran for ATLAS, the
> >> > version has/had problems. A plain build using the MS compilers works
> >> > fine without ATLAS.
> >> >
> >> > Chuck
> >> Do you think there would be interest/demand for official non-ATLAS
> >> binaries as a short term solution?
> > I doubt this would add much to what's currently available unofficially.
> But it would be "official", which counts for something - especially in
> commercial setting.
> >> I'm thinking also of 3rd party Python libraries that use NumPy, and if
> >> they/we can ship a win64 installer if NumPy doesn't.
> > This is no problem of course. If I were you though, I would first
> > if it's not better to refer your users to the Enthought version, or the
> > builds provided by Christoph Gohlke for example.
> We're currently pointing people on 64 bit Windows towards Christoph
> Gohlke's unofficial builds. I'd be quite happy if Christoph's 64bit NumPy
> installer was blessed as official and distributed via the NumPy website
> (but there may be technical issues I'm unaware of).
The plain builds don't work with scipy as I think you know, which IMHO means
they should not be official. The MKL ones should not be official because
they're non-free. That said, if others feel that plain official builds are
useful *and* someone steps up to create and troubleshoot them, then of
course that's fine with me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion