[SciPy-user] Debian package(s)?

[eric jones]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: scipy-user-admin at scipy.net [mailto:scipy-user-admin at scipy.net]
On
> Behalf Of Pearu Peterson
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:14 PM
> To: scipy-user at scipy.net
> Subject: RE: [SciPy-user] Debian package(s)?
> 
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, eric jones wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > I'm a little muddled now as to when and how the scipy_distutils
gets
> > > used.  I think that f2py uses those files at runtime.  So they
have to
> > > be installed when building scipy (i.e. when running f2py).  But I
> > > recall someone claiming that scipy doesn't need the distutils at
> > > runtime. (?)
> >
> > scipy_distutils gets used by other things now besides scipy such as
> > weave and I think Chaco is using it.  It gets bundled automatically
by
> > weave's setup.py into the weave distribution.  Rolling
scipy_distutils
> > into f2py will make f2py a dependency for weave -- not desirable.
But
> > then neither is the current setup.
> 
> I agree with both conclusions.
> 
> > We have three low level packages now: scipy_base, scipy_distutils,
and
> > scipy_test.  Gui_thread might fall into this group also.  A lot of
other
> > packages will depend on one or more of these -- f2py, scipy, weave,
> > chaco, etc.  It sounding like we really need to bundle the first
three
> > (or four) packages into a separate package (scipy_core?) to ease the
> > issues with debian packages, rpm's etc.  scipy_core could then be
listed
> > as a dependency by the other packages.
> >
> > The only thing that makes me hesitate about this is that f2py is
> > currently pure python.  If we make it depend on scipy_core, the
> > scipy_base module does have some C modules in it that people will
have
> > to build.  Since f2py really doesn't need any part of scipy_base,
this
> > dependency is a result of how things are packaged.  To get around
this,
> > we could package scipy_distutils and scipy_test together and leave
> > scipy_base in the scipy package.  Then f2py would only have pure
python
> > modules as dependencies.  Pearu (and others), is this a big win for
you,
> > or would you rather bundle all of them together as a single file?
> 
> I would like to keep f2py a separate package for purely f2py users
(the
> number of such users is not small).
> 
> So, I like the first option (that also more or less coincides with the
> proposal in my last mail). To summarize explicitly:
> 
> 1) scipy_distutils and scipy_test are bundled to scipy_core
> 2) scipy_base stays in scipy (at least for the time being)
> 3) The following packages are stand-alone and all depend on
scipy_core:
>    scipy, weave, f2py2e, chaco, etc.
> 4) scipy depends also on weave, f2py2e, chaco(?in future), etc.

This sounds good.  This really doesn't change the CVS tree much does it?
We just need to change the way distributions are created.

Eric