In article <cabl7cqg5vv_vnp0hbdx+ys6gt0npwqehth3mwb6j65ow9+1...@mail.gmail.com>, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:45 AM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Charles R Harris > > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Numpy 1.8 is about ready for an rc1, which brings up the question of > > which > > > binary builds so put up on sourceforge. For Windows maybe > > >... > > > OS X 10.6 python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, compiled with native compiler, > > linked > > > with Accelerate. > > > OS X 10.7 python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, compiled with native compiler, > > linked > > > with Accelerate. > > > OS X 10.8 python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, compiled with native compiler, > > linked > > > with Accelerate. > > > > > > That seems like a lot. It is fairly easy to compile from source on the > > mac > > > these days, are all those binary packages really needed? > > > > That's not exactly the right list - the same installers built on 10.6 also > work on 10.7 and 10.8. I agree. I'll chime in and give my recommendations, though Ralf is the expert: For MacOS X I suggest building binary installers for python.org's python 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3 (the 64-bit versions). The result will run on 10.6 and later. It is safest to build these on MacOS X 10.6; it may work to build on a later MacOS X, but it sure doesn't for some packages. You will have to update to the latest bdist_mpkg to build Mac binary installers for python 3. I've not tried it yet. I don't think users expect a binary installer for Apple's python; I don't recall ever seeing these for numpy, scipy, matplotlib.... But if you do want to supply one, Apple provides Python 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 but no 3.x (at least in MacOS X 10.8). -- Russell _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
