On 7/31/2010 10:15 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > 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).
On windows you need to use dmake rather than make but the rest is the same. It is equally a one-line process if you use the cpan shell. >> 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. The point for the source install was that it is pretty much identical for all platforms which makes one-stop shopping even more helpful to potential PDL users. >> 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"? Have you looked a the manual install directions? That is pretty much how to do everything from scratch for building a perl + PDL development environment with notes on configuring all the dependencies too. As is, it is a bit more than just installing PDL but it is definitely a needed resource. >> 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. No, I saying that the "Get PDL" page should allow one to get PDL as directly as possible. For the reasons of a common/almost identical basic install from source across all platforms, I agree with Christian that the "simple" source install should be given top billing. The binary installs are all platform based and I think the existing layout is ok there with easy to see and follow links. I would like to see the Mac OS X link be stripped down to the binary package install with the very detailed install directions moved to the section of manual install. >> 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"? The only platform that has an all-in-one package for PDL at the moment is Mac OS X. All the others have exactly the same set of dependencies as bulding from source would have---and the possibility that you'll be missing some key PDL feature because everything isn't quite there. One feature of the PDL-2.4.7 build is that is now updates the PDL::Config hash with exactly what decisions were taken for the optional installs so that users can determine how the build went and what additional actions might be needed to take. --Chris _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
