Hi Chris, On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Chris Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: > There are two basic ways to get PDL: > > (1) a standard Perl module install > (2) a binary package install > > and for now, and for PDL-2.4.7, the simplest > way to get and build PDL will be #1: > > (1) download PDL source > (2) extract the PDL-2.X.Y-tar.gz > (3) cd to the directory created > (4) perl Makefile.PL > (5) make > (6) make test > (7) make install
Compare with "package-manage install perl-PDL" for an equivalent setup. Not to mention that the user has to install a full build environment, and in the case of Windows, they have to install Perl too. Btw, will your instructions work correctly on Windows? I thought that on Windows you couldn't use GNU build tools without some extra work (e.g. cygwin). > Binary packages for PDL are often quicker > to get to but have the disadvantage of > requiring knowledge of the per-platform > package layout, program, and names of required > packages in order to work successfully. A basic PDL binary install doesn't require anything more than the package name. In turn, a source install in any platform requires a complete build environment. In terms of required knowledge and dependencies, binary installs win. I already took the trouble of testing the install command for all major Linux distributions. >> I see it differently. If you want to convince someone that PDL is easy >> to install, the *source* installation is *not* the way to do it. Heck, >> most user don't even have a compiler by default! (e.g. Windows, Mac, >> and some Linux distros). > > That can actually be fixed pretty easily with binary > package installs for most platforms. The basic > requirements for PDL to build are: perl and a C > compiler environment. I think I see an inconsistency. You argued against binary installs on the basis of dependencies (of which, there are none for a basic install) but don't see an issue with requiring a full build environment with gcc, make and development libraries like glibc. > I think 3 sections on the "Get PDL" page: one for > a "get source" install, one for a "get binary" install, > and one for "manual install". What's the difference between a "get source install" and a "manual install"? > I would like the unifying theme of this page to be "Get PDL". Are you trying to say that showing binary installs first does not constitute "Get PDL"? That hardly seems reasonable. > Right now, the best way to "Get PDL" is via the source build. How so? The source build requires more dependencies, more knowledge and more time. In which way is this "best"? Daniel. -- Intolerant people should be shot. _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
