In article <aanlktilyadppqcvzdxchqdndnzq2rm2j91ktr60if...@mail.gmail.com>, John Hunter <jdh2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Christopher Barker > <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > > Russell E. Owen wrote: > >> I made binaries (on Mac OS X 10.5) using my instructions: > >> <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/BuildingMatplotlibForMac.htm > >> l> > >> > >> They are available from here, for now: > >> <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/python/> > >> > >> please test them. > > > > Thanks Russell, this looks great -- it seems to be working on my OS-X > > 10.5 PPC box. > > > >> If they work then I hope the matplotlib folks will > >> consider serving them as official "for 3rd-party Python" binaries > >> (as opposed to the current ones they are serving, which are for Apple's > >> Python). > > > > +1 -- these really should be the official ones (nothing wring with > > serving up the 10.6 ones too, if they are well labeled) > > I'm happy to upload them, how do you suggest they should all be named? Great! I suggest that the current file named: matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.6-macosx-10.6-universal.egg be renamed to something like: matplotlib-0.99.3-ApplePython2.6-macosx-10.6.egg This is based on two things: - It needs a clear indicator that it requires Apple's python 2.6. Note that this is very unusual (I know of no other binaries built like this) so the name really needs to emphasize this - I'm not sure what universal meant (clearly it's not Intel+PPC, which is the old meaning of the term). I suggest removing it or replacing it with something clearer. If you mean it has both 32-bit and 64-bit version then perhaps you could say i32-i64. My binaries are presently named: matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.5-macosx10.4-2010-06-30.dmg matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.6-macosx10.4-2010-06-30.dmg The easy thing is to simply remove the date; the name then matches the scheme used by numpy and scipy so it will probably be clear to most users. However, I do realize it may be a bit ambiguous since you also serve the other version, so you could indicate python.org python in some way, e.g.: ...-python_org_python26 You might consider whether you are planning to continue building binaries that work with Apple's python. Personally I am never in favor of using Apple's python for several reasons: - Apple Python is part of the operating system, so it's safer to treat it as "do not touch". - It makes packaging an application impossible; the application cannot include Python and so will not run on a variety of versions of Mac OS X - Some packages cannot be upgraded (for instance Twisted) because Apple already provides a version. - Apple never seems to update Python, so you don't get bug fixes. However, at present I don't know if there is a Python 2.6 that is both compatible with older versions of Mac OS X and is built with 64-bit support. If there is not, then we'll need for two binary installers anyway (though I'd prefer both were for 3rd party versions of Python if possible). -- Russell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Matplotlib-users mailing list Matplotlib-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-users