On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Can we defer the Scipy build until after the Numpy build? >> > >> > >> > That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. >> >> I must say I'm a little confused as to how we're going to make the >> decisions here. > > > How about: attempt to reach consensus? David's concern on DLLs hasn't been > addressed yet, nor has mine on packages being unavailable. I was actually > still answering another of your emails, but I can't seem to reply fast > enough.
Yep, we will need to address those. >> >> >> I'm sure you agree that there's an opposite argument to be made, and I >> would make it if I thought it would make a difference, but I'm losing >> faith in my ability to keep the discussion on track, and I don't know >> what to do about that. > > > I don't see the problem. Before you offered to put in work. Ondrej is > willing to help, so is Christoph. So why is it impossible to do Scipy > builds? > > I can see us getting to a solution here, but offering Numpy installers > without Scipy ones is not a solution in my book. Exactly. There is no problem here. Fortran needs to be working as a first class citizen. I personally use modern Fortran a lot. I've setup this page: http://fortran90.org/ with a relevant FAQ about binary compatibility: http://fortran90.org/src/faq.html#are-fortran-compilers-abi-compatible and based on how things work on Windows, I'll be happy to extend the information there. Ondrej _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion