Dear ALPS developers and users, Since ALPS 2.0, to be released later this year in a beta version, will rely heavily on Python for data analysis I want to start a survey about the Python distributions you are using. We might be able to prepare compiled binary installation packages for the most common combinations of OS/compiler/Python distribution. Please reply to the list with the Python distribution you are using if you feel strongly about that distribution you are using now and don't want to change it when using ALPS 2.0 in the future. Matthias PS: you will always be able to compile ALPS from source against any distribution, but many people prefer the new binary installations that can be installed in less than a minute.
Dear ALPS team, for the survey : Mac OS X 10.5.8 Python 2.5.1 ( Feb 6 2009, 19:02:12) [GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5465)] on darwin feeling strongly about this version : no lode On Feb 4, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Matthias Troyer wrote:
Dear ALPS developers and users,
Since ALPS 2.0, to be released later this year in a beta version, will rely heavily on Python for data analysis I want to start a survey about the Python distributions you are using. We might be able to prepare compiled binary installation packages for the most common combinations of OS/compiler/Python distribution. Please reply to the list with the Python distribution you are using if you feel strongly about that distribution you are using now and don't want to change it when using ALPS 2.0 in the future.
Matthias
PS: you will always be able to compile ALPS from source against any distribution, but many people prefer the new binary installations that can be installed in less than a minute.
Dear Lode, Is that Apple's python distribution that comes with MacOS or a different one? Matthias On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Lode Pollet wrote:
Dear ALPS team,
for the survey : Mac OS X 10.5.8 Python 2.5.1 ( Feb 6 2009, 19:02:12) [GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5465)] on darwin
feeling strongly about this version : no
lode
On Feb 4, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Matthias Troyer wrote:
Dear ALPS developers and users,
Since ALPS 2.0, to be released later this year in a beta version, will rely heavily on Python for data analysis I want to start a survey about the Python distributions you are using. We might be able to prepare compiled binary installation packages for the most common combinations of OS/compiler/Python distribution. Please reply to the list with the Python distribution you are using if you feel strongly about that distribution you are using now and don't want to change it when using ALPS 2.0 in the future.
Matthias
PS: you will always be able to compile ALPS from source against any distribution, but many people prefer the new binary installations that can be installed in less than a minute.
Dear ALPS developers and users, I will create ALPS binary packages for Debian GNU/Linux systems, which use the Debian default packages. distribution: Debian GNU/Linux and Ubuntu architecture: amd64(x86_64), i386 (1) version: sid(unstable) / squeeze(next stable) / Lucid Lynx(10.04) (2) compiler: gcc 4.4.3 (Debian default) (3) Python: 2.5.5/2.6.4 (Debian default) (3) MPI: OpenMPI 1.3.3 (Debian default) (3) Comments: 1. Is ia64 package necessary? 2. Packages of Boost C++ Libraries 1.41 or later are only available after squeeze/Lucid Lynx. 3. The specific version may change Best regards, -- Ryo IGARASHI, Ph.D. rigarash@hosi.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OpenPGP fingerprint: BAD9 71E3 28F3 8952 5640 6A53 EC79 A280 6A19 2319
Dear Ryo, We only have one ia64 machine at ETH that we do not use for ALPS at the moment, but I believe that Synge used to run ALPS on the ia64 architecture. Can you please check with Synge? For most casual ALPS users who want packaged releases it should be enough to support i386 and x86_64 Matthias On Feb 5, 2010, at 1:24 AM, Ryo IGARASHI wrote:
Dear ALPS developers and users,
I will create ALPS binary packages for Debian GNU/Linux systems, which use the Debian default packages.
distribution: Debian GNU/Linux and Ubuntu architecture: amd64(x86_64), i386 (1) version: sid(unstable) / squeeze(next stable) / Lucid Lynx(10.04) (2) compiler: gcc 4.4.3 (Debian default) (3) Python: 2.5.5/2.6.4 (Debian default) (3) MPI: OpenMPI 1.3.3 (Debian default) (3)
Comments: 1. Is ia64 package necessary? 2. Packages of Boost C++ Libraries 1.41 or later are only available after squeeze/Lucid Lynx. 3. The specific version may change
Best regards, -- Ryo IGARASHI, Ph.D. rigarash@hosi.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OpenPGP fingerprint: BAD9 71E3 28F3 8952 5640 6A53 EC79 A280 6A19 2319
Dear Prof. Troyer, On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
We only have one ia64 machine at ETH that we do not use for ALPS at the moment, but I believe that Synge used to run ALPS on the ia64 architecture. Can you please check with Synge? For most casual ALPS users who want packaged releases it should be enough to support i386 and x86_64
I am also running my application under ia64 but not on Debian. The point is, that I don't believe there is many Debian-installed ia64 machine. Best regards, -- Ryo IGARASHI, Ph.D. rigarash@hosi.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OpenPGP fingerprint: BAD9 71E3 28F3 8952 5640 6A53 EC79 A280 6A19 2319
On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Ryo IGARASHI wrote:
Dear Prof. Troyer,
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
We only have one ia64 machine at ETH that we do not use for ALPS at the moment, but I believe that Synge used to run ALPS on the ia64 architecture. Can you please check with Synge? For most casual ALPS users who want packaged releases it should be enough to support i386 and x86_64
I am also running my application under ia64 but not on Debian. The point is, that I don't believe there is many Debian-installed ia64 machine.
Then don't worry about it. We should focus on what users really need and not what one could do in principle. There is too much to do to indulge in the luxury of supporting all possible platforms just for the fun of it. To summarize, the packages we need are: MacOS X ALPS Vistrails patch MacOS X 32-bit MacOS 10.5 MacOS X 64-bit MacOS 10.6 Windows Vistrails patch Windows 32-bit Debian i386 Debian i86_64 How about RPM ? Suse ? Ubuntu ? Matthias
Dear Prof. Troyer, Currently we are working with a single x86_64 Red Hat Enterprise WS r4 workstation and would like an easy rpm method of deploying ALPS onto the cluster. The python version is Red Hat supported 2.3.4. If a rpm package could be created our group would be grateful. Many Thanks ................................................................................................................................................. Simon N E Ward London Centre for Nanotechnology and Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London 17-19 Gordon Street London WC1H 0AH Phone: +44 207 679 3430 Mobile: +44 774 029 1978 Email: simon.ward.09@ucl.ac.uk .................................................................................................................................................. -----Original Message----- From: comp-phys-alps-users-bounces@phys.ethz.ch [mailto:comp-phys-alps-users-bounces@phys.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Matthias Troyer Sent: 05 February 2010 08:06 To: comp-phys-alps-users@phys.ethz.ch Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] Python distributions On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Ryo IGARASHI wrote:
Dear Prof. Troyer,
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
We only have one ia64 machine at ETH that we do not use for ALPS at the moment, but I believe that Synge used to run ALPS on the ia64 architecture. Can you please check with Synge? For most casual ALPS users who want packaged releases it should be enough to support i386 and x86_64
I am also running my application under ia64 but not on Debian. The point is, that I don't believe there is many Debian-installed ia64 machine.
Then don't worry about it. We should focus on what users really need and not what one could do in principle. There is too much to do to indulge in the luxury of supporting all possible platforms just for the fun of it. To summarize, the packages we need are: MacOS X ALPS Vistrails patch MacOS X 32-bit MacOS 10.5 MacOS X 64-bit MacOS 10.6 Windows Vistrails patch Windows 32-bit Debian i386 Debian i86_64 How about RPM ? Suse ? Ubuntu ? Matthias
Dear Simon, Do you run the data evaluation on the same cluster or on some frontend user workstation? Python will only be needed for the evaluation phase and I am not sure that the packages we need support Python 2.3. Is it possible to upgrade to a more recent version of Python? Also, which Boost version is used on that OS? We need at least 1.41. Matthias On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Simon S N E Ward wrote:
Dear Prof. Troyer,
Currently we are working with a single x86_64 Red Hat Enterprise WS r4 workstation and would like an easy rpm method of deploying ALPS onto the cluster. The python version is Red Hat supported 2.3.4. If a rpm package could be created our group would be grateful.
Many Thanks
................................................................................................................................................. Simon N E Ward London Centre for Nanotechnology and Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London 17-19 Gordon Street London WC1H 0AH Phone: +44 207 679 3430 Mobile: +44 774 029 1978 Email: simon.ward.09@ucl.ac.uk ..................................................................................................................................................
-----Original Message----- From: comp-phys-alps-users-bounces@phys.ethz.ch [mailto:comp-phys-alps-users-bounces@phys.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Matthias Troyer Sent: 05 February 2010 08:06 To: comp-phys-alps-users@phys.ethz.ch Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] Python distributions
On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Ryo IGARASHI wrote:
Dear Prof. Troyer,
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
We only have one ia64 machine at ETH that we do not use for ALPS at the moment, but I believe that Synge used to run ALPS on the ia64 architecture. Can you please check with Synge? For most casual ALPS users who want packaged releases it should be enough to support i386 and x86_64
I am also running my application under ia64 but not on Debian. The point is, that I don't believe there is many Debian-installed ia64 machine.
Then don't worry about it. We should focus on what users really need and not what one could do in principle. There is too much to do to indulge in the luxury of supporting all possible platforms just for the fun of it. To summarize, the packages we need are:
MacOS X ALPS Vistrails patch MacOS X 32-bit MacOS 10.5 MacOS X 64-bit MacOS 10.6
Windows Vistrails patch Windows 32-bit
Debian i386 Debian i86_64
How about RPM ? Suse ? Ubuntu ?
Matthias
Dear Prof. Troyer, On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
Debian i386 Debian i86_64
How about RPM ? Suse ? Ubuntu ?
It would be easy to make packages for Ubuntu 10.04(Lucid Lynx) after my Debian work finishes. RHEL (CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc.) will have some problem. The upstream only have only python 2.4, boost 1.33, in the main... I don't have experience with recent SUSE. -- Ryo IGARASHI, Ph.D. rigarash@hosi.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OpenPGP fingerprint: BAD9 71E3 28F3 8952 5640 6A53 EC79 A280 6A19 2319
Dear all, According to Linux distributions, there is probably a difference between the distributions installed in the physics departments and the ones installed on personal machines. In the departments, I think Debian and Fedora will be the usual distribution installed. On personal computers and especially on laptops, I think that Ubuntu represents most part of them. So I would say that rpm will be a good thing but also Ubuntu to encourage people to try on their own laptop. As mentioned, if a Debian package is available, Ubuntu installation should be more or less straightforward. Jean-David Le 5 févr. 2010 à 09:05, Matthias Troyer a écrit :
On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Ryo IGARASHI wrote:
Dear Prof. Troyer,
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
We only have one ia64 machine at ETH that we do not use for ALPS at the moment, but I believe that Synge used to run ALPS on the ia64 architecture. Can you please check with Synge? For most casual ALPS users who want packaged releases it should be enough to support i386 and x86_64
I am also running my application under ia64 but not on Debian. The point is, that I don't believe there is many Debian-installed ia64 machine.
Then don't worry about it. We should focus on what users really need and not what one could do in principle. There is too much to do to indulge in the luxury of supporting all possible platforms just for the fun of it. To summarize, the packages we need are:
MacOS X ALPS Vistrails patch MacOS X 32-bit MacOS 10.5 MacOS X 64-bit MacOS 10.6
Windows Vistrails patch Windows 32-bit
Debian i386 Debian i86_64
How about RPM ? Suse ? Ubuntu ?
Matthias
Dear Matthias, Which version is the minimum requirement to run the ALPS python tools? 2.4? 2.5 or even higher? Synge On 2010/02/05, at 4:45, Matthias Troyer wrote:
Dear ALPS developers and users,
Since ALPS 2.0, to be released later this year in a beta version, will rely heavily on Python for data analysis I want to start a survey about the Python distributions you are using. We might be able to prepare compiled binary installation packages for the most common combinations of OS/compiler/Python distribution. Please reply to the list with the Python distribution you are using if you feel strongly about that distribution you are using now and don't want to change it when using ALPS 2.0 in the future.
Matthias
PS: you will always be able to compile ALPS from source against any distribution, but many people prefer the new binary installations that can be installed in less than a minute.
We currently build it against 2.5 and 2.6 Matthias On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Synge Todo wrote:
Dear Matthias,
Which version is the minimum requirement to run the ALPS python tools? 2.4? 2.5 or even higher?
Synge
On 2010/02/05, at 4:45, Matthias Troyer wrote:
Dear ALPS developers and users,
Since ALPS 2.0, to be released later this year in a beta version, will rely heavily on Python for data analysis I want to start a survey about the Python distributions you are using. We might be able to prepare compiled binary installation packages for the most common combinations of OS/compiler/Python distribution. Please reply to the list with the Python distribution you are using if you feel strongly about that distribution you are using now and don't want to change it when using ALPS 2.0 in the future.
Matthias
PS: you will always be able to compile ALPS from source against any distribution, but many people prefer the new binary installations that can be installed in less than a minute.
Dear all, I am using python 2.5.4 on Mac OS X but it is not a native Mac version but part of the EPD distribution (free for academic users) that allows to get with no effort (binary installation) all the python tools : scipy, numpy, matplotlib,... with compatible and updated versions. Best, Jean-David Le 4 févr. 2010 à 20:45, Matthias Troyer a écrit :
Dear ALPS developers and users,
Since ALPS 2.0, to be released later this year in a beta version, will rely heavily on Python for data analysis I want to start a survey about the Python distributions you are using. We might be able to prepare compiled binary installation packages for the most common combinations of OS/compiler/Python distribution. Please reply to the list with the Python distribution you are using if you feel strongly about that distribution you are using now and don't want to change it when using ALPS 2.0 in the future.
Matthias
PS: you will always be able to compile ALPS from source against any distribution, but many people prefer the new binary installations that can be installed in less than a minute.
The current status of the survey is: Apple Python EPD MacPorts The problem I see with macports is that any version uyodate of Python there needs a recompilation of ALPS. Thus this is best distributed via an ALPS ports package. We already have a trac tikcet for that. Apple Python is currently used as default for the binary installers. What we should do to support EPD is to modify FindPythonLibs package to detect EPD and use it instead of Apple's Python if it exists. Jean-David, do you feel competent to do that? Do you want to visit us in Zurich so that we do it together? Matthias
Sure it will be a pleasure to come to Zurich and help ! Jean-David Le 5 févr. 2010 à 09:09, Matthias Troyer a écrit :
The current status of the survey is:
Apple Python EPD MacPorts
The problem I see with macports is that any version uyodate of Python there needs a recompilation of ALPS. Thus this is best distributed via an ALPS ports package. We already have a trac tikcet for that.
Apple Python is currently used as default for the binary installers. What we should do to support EPD is to modify FindPythonLibs package to detect EPD and use it instead of Apple's Python if it exists. Jean-David, do you feel competent to do that? Do you want to visit us in Zurich so that we do it together?
Matthias
participants (6)
-
Jean-David Picon
-
Lode Pollet
-
Matthias Troyer
-
Ryo IGARASHI
-
Simon S N E Ward
-
Synge Todo