I hope so- Working out the dependency resolution for PDL from perl takes a bit of work. That is actually a reason to have the perl module build version of the PDL install *more* accessible to new PDL users.
If we can get more build feedback for different platforms, that will greatly improve our ability to make a portable PDL release, binary or otherwise. The good news is that there may be a good, non-platform specific approach to making a one-click, try/use PDL install which we can experiment with for 2.4.8. Cheers, Chris On 7/31/2010 4:59 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Fair enough. Maybe in 2.4.8... > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Chris Marshall<[email protected]> wrote: >> These are the reasons I think we might be >> getting ahead of ourselves pushing for a >> binary PDL package of some sort before PDL >> actually builds portably on win32, linux, >> *bsd, macosx,... >> >> Not to mention the bad impression that could >> come from PDL "working" on some platforms and >> "not working" on others because of various >> issues with the binary releases and lack of >> full-time maintainers. >> >> --Chris >> >> >> >> On 7/30/2010 6:47 PM, Karl Glazebrook wrote: >>> >>> The issue is every binary bundle needs a >>> maintainer with access to the system in >>> question and a virgin test system. And it's >>> all non-trivial. >>> >>> Volunteers for Linux and Win32 are welcome. >>> Though Linux might be a nightmare. >>> >>> Karl _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
