[pymvpa] Why no PyPI?

[Yaroslav Halchenko]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Ben Acland wrote:
>    See, I knew I was stepping in it :).
>    I think I can handle that. Pip only does python stuff, of course, but that
>    covers the must-haves and the strong recommendations. For the optionals,
>    there's a way to define external requirements, and print a warning saying,
>    "you should really consider installing this." I found a decent example of
>    something that might be acceptable in the python module Shapely. See this
>    gist for an example of what happens when you try to install it without a c
>    library that makes it run faster:
>    [1]https://gist.github.com/beOn/4970435
>    Would that kind of behavior be acceptable? 

I think so... the only hard requirement is numpy, then very desirable is
scipy () + nose (for testing) + matplotlib (for plotting)
and then everything else from the link I have provided ;-)

btw -- does any package you know finishes "installation" by unit-testing 
the beast?  imho it would be nice as well if pymvpa gets tested as
installed, and in case of failure -- output of mvpa2.wtf() would be
provided -- this could greatly simplify any needed troubleshooting and
would prevent (delayed) problems with deployed pymvpa

> If so... yeah, I think I can
>    take this on. Otherwise, I'll at least be happy to write a homebrew
>    formula, but pip wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
-- 
Yaroslav O. Halchenko
http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org
Postdoctoral Fellow,   Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834                       Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
WWW:   http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik