[Numpy-discussion] Binary releases

[Charles R Harris]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> New summary
>>
>>    1. 32 bit windows, python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, compiled with MSVC
>>    2. 64 bit windows, python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, compiled with MSVC,
>>    linked with MKL
>>
>> These should be good for both windows 7 and window 8.
>>
>>
> Wait, when was it decided to move to MSVC for the official binaries ?
> Especially using ifort/MKL on windows means it will be difficult for other
> projects to produce packages on top of it.
>
>
It hasn't been decided, this is just a modified version of the initial
post. Why not use MSVC? python.org does. What is the problem with
statically linked MKL? Do other packages need to link to lapack? The
windows build problem has hung around for years. I'm tired of it.

> For Mac there is first the question of OS X versions, (10.5?), 10.6, 10.7,
>> 10.8. If 10.5 is omitted, packages built on 10.6 should be good for 10.7
>> and 10.8, so
>>
>>    1. OS X 10.6  python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, compiled with native
>>    compiler, linked with Accelerate.
>>
>> The main question seems to be distribution and coordination with scipy. I
>> was thinking we would link in MKL statically, which I think should be OK.
>> Christoph does that and it should decouple Numpy from Scipy. It may not be
>> the most efficient way to do things, but it would work. My impression is
>> that if we wanted to distribute a dynamic library then every user would
>> need an MKL license to use it.
>>
>> It would be good to get this settled soon as we can't afford to futz
>> around with this forever waiting to release Numpy 1.8 and Scipy 0.13.
>>
>>
Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20130916/3a4b0e7d/attachment.html>