Menu
▾
▴
matplotlib-users
|
From: Russell E. O. <ro...@uw...> - 2010-06-30 23:58:32
|
I'm trying to find a matplotlib 0.99.3 binary installer that works with the standard python.org Python (preferably 2.6) and hence works with Mac OS X 10.4 or greater. (I distribute an application that needs to run on a wide range of versions of Mac OS X). The official binary I found refuses to install on my machine claiming it wants system python 2.6 (I happen to be running 10.5 so that's no use to me, and some users of my application are running 10.4). I also tried the egg, but of course it fails -- presumably it's based on the same build. If a binary isn't available I"ll make my own, but I figured I'd check first. -- Russell |
|
From: Russell E. O. <ro...@uw...> - 2010-07-01 15:11:08
|
In article <row...@ne...>, "Russell E. Owen" <ro...@uw...> wrote: > I'm trying to find a matplotlib 0.99.3 binary installer that works with > the standard python.org Python (preferably 2.6) and hence works with Mac > OS X 10.4 or greater. (I distribute an application that needs to run on > a wide range of versions of Mac OS X). > > The official binary I found refuses to install on my machine claiming it > wants system python 2.6 (I happen to be running 10.5 so that's no use to > me, and some users of my application are running 10.4). > > I also tried the egg, but of course it fails -- presumably it's based on > the same build. > > If a binary isn't available I"ll make my own, but I figured I'd check > first. > > -- Russell > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint > What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? > Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first I made binaries (on Mac OS X 10.5) using my instructions: <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/BuildingMatplotlibForMac.htm l> They are available from here, for now: <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/python/> please test them. If they work then I hope the matplotlib folks will consider serving them as official "for 3rd-party Python" binaries (as opposed to the current ones they are serving, which are for Apple's Python). -- Russell |
|
From: Christopher B. <Chr...@no...> - 2010-07-01 18:56:55
|
Russell E. Owen wrote: > I made binaries (on Mac OS X 10.5) using my instructions: > <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/BuildingMatplotlibForMac.htm > l> > > They are available from here, for now: > <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/python/> > > please test them. Thanks Russell, this looks great -- it seems to be working on my OS-X 10.5 PPC box. > If they work then I hope the matplotlib folks will > consider serving them as official "for 3rd-party Python" binaries > (as opposed to the current ones they are serving, which are for Apple's > Python). +1 -- these really should be the official ones (nothing wring with serving up the 10.6 ones too, if they are well labeled) -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chr...@no... |
|
From: John H. <jd...@gm...> - 2010-07-01 19:04:22
|
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Christopher Barker <Chr...@no...> wrote: > Russell E. Owen wrote: >> I made binaries (on Mac OS X 10.5) using my instructions: >> <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/BuildingMatplotlibForMac.htm >> l> >> >> They are available from here, for now: >> <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/python/> >> >> please test them. > > Thanks Russell, this looks great -- it seems to be working on my OS-X > 10.5 PPC box. > >> If they work then I hope the matplotlib folks will >> consider serving them as official "for 3rd-party Python" binaries >> (as opposed to the current ones they are serving, which are for Apple's >> Python). > > +1 -- these really should be the official ones (nothing wring with > serving up the 10.6 ones too, if they are well labeled) I'm happy to upload them, how do you suggest they should all be named? JDH |
|
From: Russell E. O. <ro...@uw...> - 2010-07-01 22:58:31
|
In article <AAN...@ma...>, John Hunter <jd...@gm...> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Christopher Barker > <Chr...@no...> wrote: > > Russell E. Owen wrote: > >> I made binaries (on Mac OS X 10.5) using my instructions: > >> <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/BuildingMatplotlibForMac.htm > >> l> > >> > >> They are available from here, for now: > >> <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/python/> > >> > >> please test them. > > > > Thanks Russell, this looks great -- it seems to be working on my OS-X > > 10.5 PPC box. > > > >> If they work then I hope the matplotlib folks will > >> consider serving them as official "for 3rd-party Python" binaries > >> (as opposed to the current ones they are serving, which are for Apple's > >> Python). > > > > +1 -- these really should be the official ones (nothing wring with > > serving up the 10.6 ones too, if they are well labeled) > > I'm happy to upload them, how do you suggest they should all be named? Great! I suggest that the current file named: matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.6-macosx-10.6-universal.egg be renamed to something like: matplotlib-0.99.3-ApplePython2.6-macosx-10.6.egg This is based on two things: - It needs a clear indicator that it requires Apple's python 2.6. Note that this is very unusual (I know of no other binaries built like this) so the name really needs to emphasize this - I'm not sure what universal meant (clearly it's not Intel+PPC, which is the old meaning of the term). I suggest removing it or replacing it with something clearer. If you mean it has both 32-bit and 64-bit version then perhaps you could say i32-i64. My binaries are presently named: matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.5-macosx10.4-2010-06-30.dmg matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.6-macosx10.4-2010-06-30.dmg The easy thing is to simply remove the date; the name then matches the scheme used by numpy and scipy so it will probably be clear to most users. However, I do realize it may be a bit ambiguous since you also serve the other version, so you could indicate python.org python in some way, e.g.: ...-python_org_python26 You might consider whether you are planning to continue building binaries that work with Apple's python. Personally I am never in favor of using Apple's python for several reasons: - Apple Python is part of the operating system, so it's safer to treat it as "do not touch". - It makes packaging an application impossible; the application cannot include Python and so will not run on a variety of versions of Mac OS X - Some packages cannot be upgraded (for instance Twisted) because Apple already provides a version. - Apple never seems to update Python, so you don't get bug fixes. However, at present I don't know if there is a Python 2.6 that is both compatible with older versions of Mac OS X and is built with 64-bit support. If there is not, then we'll need for two binary installers anyway (though I'd prefer both were for 3rd party versions of Python if possible). -- Russell |
|
From: Christopher B. <Chr...@no...> - 2010-07-01 23:10:02
|
Russell E. Owen wrote: > However, at present I don't know if there is a Python 2.6 that is both > compatible with older versions of Mac OS X and is built with 64-bit > support. FWIW, I think the official 2.7 builds will be Intel32+Intel64+PPC32 I don't know if Ronald is going to back=port any of that for 2.6, but I kind of doubt it. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chr...@no... |
|
From: Russell E. O. <ro...@uw...> - 2010-07-01 23:17:58
|
In article <row...@ne...>, "Russell E. Owen" <ro...@uw...> wrote: > My binaries are presently named: > matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.5-macosx10.4-2010-06-30.dmg > matplotlib-0.99.3-py2.6-macosx10.4-2010-06-30.dmg > > The easy thing is to simply remove the date; the name then matches the > scheme used by numpy and scipy so it will probably be clear to most > users. I guess I'm blind. Here is the naming scheme used by numpy and scipy: scipy-0.7.2-py2.6-python.org.dmg numpy-1.4.1-py2.6-python.org.dmg One option is to simply adopt that (replacing python.org with Apple for your binary). But I really don't like omitting the minimum version of Mac OS X it works with (not to mention omitting "mac" altogether!), so I recommend the following, where I moved the python source before the version of python because otherwise the Apple in "py2.6-Apple-macosx10.6" might seem to refer to macosx instead of python: matplotlib-0.99.3-Apple-py2.6-macosx10.6.dmg for your existing binary, and matplotlib-0.99.3-python-py2.5-macosx10.4.dmg matplotlib-0.99.3-python-py2.6-macosx10.4.dmg for mine. -- Russell |
|
From: John H. <jd...@gm...> - 2010-07-02 14:43:48
|
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Russell E. Owen <ro...@uw...> wrote: > matplotlib-0.99.3-Apple-py2.6-macosx10.6.dmg > for your existing binary, and > matplotlib-0.99.3-python-py2.5-macosx10.4.dmg > matplotlib-0.99.3-python-py2.6-macosx10.4.dmg OK, this is done. Thanks for the builds and naming suggestions. Do you think we should replace the eggs on the site with your builds and names as well, and importantly, if so, are you able to build them? My OSX builds were initially curtailed when my powerbook died. William Stein and the sage project gave me remote access to one of their OSX build boxes and that was working for a while but then they upgraded to 10.6 64bit and that broke the build environment again for a while and I don't have an easy way to configure that machine with the various builds of python and associated tools that I need. In short, I am not the best person to do the OSX builds and am wondering if you would be interested in doing the OSX binaries for upcoming releases. We are working to get 1.0 out ASAP -- possibly over the weekend or early next week depending on our efforts to quash a couple of remaining bugs. Would you be able to do the OSX binary builds for 1.0 too? Thanks, JDH |
|
From: Russell O. <ro...@uw...> - 2010-07-02 15:52:07
|
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:43 AM, John Hunter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Russell E. Owen <ro...@uw...> wrote: > >> matplotlib-0.99.3-Apple-py2.6-macosx10.6.dmg >> for your existing binary, and >> matplotlib-0.99.3-python-py2.5-macosx10.4.dmg >> matplotlib-0.99.3-python-py2.6-macosx10.4.dmg > > OK, this is done. Thanks for the builds and naming suggestions. Do > you think we should replace the eggs on the site with your builds and > names as well, and importantly, if so, are you able to build them? My > OSX builds were initially curtailed when my powerbook died. William > Stein and the sage project gave me remote access to one of their OSX > build boxes and that was working for a while but then they upgraded to > 10.6 64bit and that broke the build environment again for a while and > I don't have an easy way to configure that machine with the various > builds of python and associated tools that I need. In short, I am not > the best person to do the OSX builds and am wondering if you would be > interested in doing the OSX binaries for upcoming releases. We are > working to get 1.0 out ASAP -- possibly over the weekend or early next > week depending on our efforts to quash a couple of remaining bugs. > Would you be able to do the OSX binary builds for 1.0 too? > > Thanks, > JDH I would be happy to make the Mac binary builds for matplotlib (at least the ones I know how to make -- for python.org 32-bit). I personally suggest not building Mac eggs -- at least until easy_install gets really cleaned up. Right now it tends to try to download stuff it has no business downloading and it doesn't check for compatibility. The binary installer is much safer. But if you insist and have easy instructions I will do it. I suspect I didn't fully answer your question, but I'm not sure what else you want to know so I'll ask you to rephrase any remaining issues. I'm a bit worried about what will happen when I eventually upgrade my work computer to 10.6 (it's our last remaining 10.5 machine at the moment). But since I have ready access to 10.6 computers I should see if I can do a working build on 10.6 with the binaries I already created on 10.5. (That is likely to work, and may save a lot of trouble -- at least until those versions of libfreetype, etc. get old enough to need upgrading). I don't see myself going to 64-bit for a long time since I have to keep my work machine as compatible as possible. It is very exciting to hear that matplotlib 1.0 is so close. Regards, -- Russell |
|
From: John H. <jd...@gm...> - 2010-07-02 15:39:08
|
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Russell Owen <ro...@uw...> wrote: > I would be happy to make the Mac binary builds for matplotlib (at least the ones I know how to make -- for python.org 32-bit). > > I personally suggest not building Mac eggs -- at least until easy_install gets really cleaned up. Right now it tends to try to download stuff it has no business downloading and it doesn't check for compatibility. The binary installer is much safer. But if you insist and have easy instructions I will do it. > I won't insist -- I have personally found eggs are more trouble than their worth. Others may ask for them, so we can deal with this on as as needed basis. > I suspect I didn't fully answer your question, but I'm not sure what else you want to know so I'll ask you to rephrase any remaining issues. > You answered my two questions: should we build eggs (no) and will you do the builds (yes). Perfect. > I'm a bit worried about what will happen when I eventually upgrade my work computer to 10.6 (it's our last remaining 10.5 machine at the moment). But since I have ready access to 10.6 computers I should see if I can do a working build on 10.6 with the binaries I already created on 10.5. (That is likely to work, and may save a lot of trouble -- at least until those versions of libfreetype, etc. get old enough to need upgrading). I don't see myself going to 64-bit for a long time since I have to keep my work machine as compatible as possible. > If need be, perhaps I can do the 10.6 64 bit binaries on the sage machine. I just need to figure out the apple python vs python.org python problem on that platform. > It is very exciting to hear that matplotlib 1.0 is so close. Yep -- long time coming :-) Thanks for your help, JDH |
|
From: Russell E. O. <ro...@uw...> - 2010-07-03 00:12:20
|
In article <4C2...@no...>, Christopher Barker <Chr...@no...> wrote: > Russell E. Owen wrote: > > However, at present I don't know if there is a Python 2.6 that is both > > compatible with older versions of Mac OS X and is built with 64-bit > > support. > > FWIW, I think the official 2.7 builds will be Intel32+Intel64+PPC32 > > I don't know if Ronald is going to back=port any of that for 2.6, but I > kind of doubt it. > > -Chris That sounds useful. Can bdist_mpkg handle Intel64? -- Russell |
