Re: [matplotlib-devel] 1.3.0 final tagged and uploaded

[Russell E. O. <ro...@uw...>]

In article <51F...@st...>,
 Michael Droettboom <md...@st...> 
 wrote:

> Ludwig, this is one of the most entertaining e-mails I've read in a 
> while, and I think your arguments make a lot of sense.
> 
> Given infinite developer resources, do you think there's any logic to 
> providing *both* system Python and python.org based binaries? How much 
> additional work would that be?
> 
> I think the big problems to solve now is
> 
> (a) get to the bottom of why the new installer is breaking existing 
> installations of dateutil and pytz.  Russell: even though they are not 
> currently working, could you provide what you have so that others can 
> have a look?

I put the installer here (and announced it earlier -- I thought in this 
thread):
<http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/python/>

I do not consider it safe because:
- It may trash existing installations of dateutil and pytz (especially 
those installed by the matplotlib 1.2.1 binary installer)
- It does not include pytz, dateutil and six (unlike the 1.2.1 binary 
installer), so it's a real pain to use
- It is missing its unit tests and so is poorly tested
- It also appears that pylab is broken (something I only recently 
discovered)

Unless somebody figures out how to include the dependencies, I think a 
Mac binary installer is a nonstarter.

-- Russell

P.S. the Mac binary installer for numpy used to be easy to find. I was 
quite dismayed to find how buried it had become when I went looking for 
it a week or two ago.