#12051 closed enhancement (fixed)
RFU: py-ipython-0.8.1 - make py-scientific dependency a variant
Reported by: | parrishmyers@… | Owned by: | jochen@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Low | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | |
Keywords: | ipython | Cc: | parrishmyers@…, markd@… |
Port: |
Description
I noticed that when installing py-ipython, it includes py-scientific and subsequently netcdf because of dependencies. As far as I understand, there is no direct dependency on that package... can a variant be made to remove that dependincy for those that don't want to install py-scientific?
Change History (8)
comment:1 Changed 17 years ago by markd@…
Cc: | parrishmyers@… markd@… added |
---|---|
Milestone: | → Port Enhancements |
Summary: | add variant to remove extra dependency → RFE: py-ipython-0.8.1 - make py-scientific dependency a variant |
comment:2 Changed 17 years ago by jochen@…
Priority: | Expected → Nice to have |
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
Version: | 1.4.40 → 1.4.42 |
Physics.PhysicalQuantities and friends in ipython actually need py-scientific, therefore a standard install of py-ipython should include the dependency on py-scientific.
I am not sure a variant that does not use py-scientific makes sense. It could be done, and ipython would also still install, but it might trigger bug-reports that are hard to follow...
comment:3 Changed 17 years ago by parrishmyers@…
What confuses me is that iPython is hosted by the Scipy/Numpy folks, and yet there is a ScientificPython dependency in the profile support area... Which package is it a part of? It almost seems that the package could be modified to handle 3 configurations: none, py-scientific, and py-scipy. Although, this sounds like an upstream problem.
As a side note: I have installed iPython without the ScientificPython and it works great (as long as I don't include the physics profile -- which relies on ScientificPython).
comment:4 Changed 17 years ago by markd@…
Based on jochen's comments, it sounds like we should leave it alone. It doesn't sound like there is a real advantage to not installing scientific, and potential problems as well. I think this can be closed.
comment:6 Changed 17 years ago by jochen@…
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Closed, as consensus seems to be to leave the port alone.
comment:7 Changed 17 years ago by nox@…
Cc: | parrishmyers@yahoo.com,markd@macports.org → parrishmyers@yahoo.com, markd@macports.org |
---|---|
Priority: | Nice to have → Low |
Summary: | RFE: py-ipython-0.8.1 - make py-scientific dependency a variant → RFU: py-ipython-0.8.1 - make py-scientific dependency a variant |
Version: | 1.4.42 |
comment:8 Changed 16 years ago by (none)
Milestone: | Port Enhancements |
---|
Milestone Port Enhancements deleted
It could be removed as a dependency and only added via a variant made for that. Do you think that behavior is more likely to please users? The package has no maintainer. Any interest in doing that?