Re: [Matplotlib-users] Any progress on binary installer for OSX?

[Matthew B. <mat...@gm...>]

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Russell E. Owen <ro...@uw...> wrote:
> In article
> <CAH...@ma...>,
>  Matthew Brett <mat...@gm...>
>  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Michael Droettboom
>> <md...@st...> wrote:
>> > Matthew Terry, as part of his Mac testing project, has done a great deal of
>> > reconnaissance on this.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/matplotlib/mpl_mac_testing
>> >
>> > I know he was looking into statically linking some of the C dependencies
>> > (freetype, libpng etc.) as a way to make the installer more robust to
>> > different environments.
>>
>> Thanks - that looks like a useful testing grid.
>>
>> Are there any near-term plans for something like a .dmg or .mpkg or
>> .pkg installer?
>
> Building a binary installer with statically linked libraries is not
> terribly hard (see
> <http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/BuildingMatplotlibForMac.htm
> l>). There are two problem:
> - As of 1.3.0 mpl does not include python-dateutil, pytz or six (for
> good reasons) and that makes it harder to make a really usable binary
> installer. This interacts with the next problem:
> - For unknown reasons running the 1.3.0 installer breaks existing
> installations of python-dateutil if those packages were installed using
> an older mpl binary installer.
>
> The missing packages can be added to the binary installer after it is
> produced by bdist_mpkg by post-processing the mpkg. That would take care
> of the second issue for most users (who would use the default
> installation and get everything). I have not had time to deal with that.
> Thus I never uploaded an official binary installer for 1.3.0 and stopped
> providing them. Matthew Terry has taken over that task.

Aha - yes - postprocessing the mpkg would be pretty easy.

So - I guess I should just build the installer myself and post it for
testing?  Is that the best way forward?

Cheers,

Matthew