0.5.0, Debian/Ubuntu, patsy dependency or include?

[josef...@gmail.com]

I just found this

https://code.launchpad.net/~pythonxy/+recipe/statsmodels-daily-current
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/116878222/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-i386.statsmodels_0.5.0~ppa7~revno-1256~precise1_BUILDING.txt.gz

patsy is missing as a dependency/requirement
(no idea why there is a problem with pandas dependency for 64)

For 0.5 we have have to make patsy a requirement or we could include
it in the source and binary distributions directly.

patsy is just an easy_install or pip install.

Two questions:

Yaroslav, Timmie
Are there any problems getting statsmodels updated through the linux
distribution system with patsy as new dependency?

Nathaniel, Skipper
How stable is the API of patsy?
If there are changes in the future, then it might be better to freeze
a patsy version inside the statsmodels distribution than to have to
worrry about version compatibility problems with future versions of
statsmodels and patsy.


Thanks,

Josef

[Yaroslav Halchenko]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, josef...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://code.launchpad.net/~pythonxy/+recipe/statsmodels-daily-current
> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/116878222/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-i386.statsmodels_0.5.0~ppa7~revno-1256~precise1_BUILDING.txt.gz
> patsy is missing as a dependency/requirement

since it is a new requirement ;-)

> Yaroslav, Timmie
> Are there any problems getting statsmodels updated through the linux
> distribution system with patsy as new dependency?

from a quick look -- Nathaniel seems have done a good job keeping patsy
well organized and tested. So -- I guess I could
package/maintain it for Debian... but may be Nathaniel wants to do that
on his own? ;-) I could mentor/sponsor.

> Nathaniel, Skipper
> How stable is the API of patsy?

and should there may be a fresh release, especially if statsmodels
requires some of the recent changes?

--
Yaroslav O. Halchenko
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

[Nathaniel Smith]

On 22 Sep 2012 17:50, "Yaroslav Halchenko" <yarik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, josef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://code.launchpad.net/~pythonxy/+recipe/statsmodels-daily-current
> > https://launchpadlibrarian.net/116878222/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-i386.statsmodels_0.5.0~ppa7~revno-1256~precise1_BUILDING.txt.gz
> > patsy is missing as a dependency/requirement
>
> since it is a new requirement ;-)
>
> > Yaroslav, Timmie
> > Are there any problems getting statsmodels updated through the linux
> > distribution system with patsy as new dependency?
>
> from a quick look -- Nathaniel seems have done a good job keeping patsy
> well organized and tested.  So -- I guess I could
> package/maintain it for Debian... but may be Nathaniel wants to do that
> on his own? ;-)  I could mentor/sponsor.

I would really rather not :-). If you're willing to package it then I would be very grateful. (It should be pretty trivial, it's a completely bog standard setup.py-using pure-python package.)

> > Nathaniel, Skipper
> > How stable is the API of patsy?

My goal at this point is to keep the API compatible. At the least I'll being up any incompatible changes for discussion first.

> and should there may be a fresh release, especially if statsmodels
> requires some of the recent changes?

I don't think there's anything in git that statsmodels would need? I haven't had time to touch it much since getting 0.1 out anyway...

-n

[Tim Michelsen]

>> https://code.launchpad.net/~pythonxy/+recipe/statsmodels-daily-current
>>
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/116878222/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-i386.statsmodels_0.5.0~ppa7~revno-1256~precise1_BUILDING.txt.gz
>> patsy is missing as a dependency/requirement
>

I can easily add it once available as package.

> since it is a new requirement ;-)

Why can we not make it a recommended package?
Statsmodels work also without it, right?

>> Are there any problems getting statsmodels updated through the linux
>> distribution system with patsy as new dependency?

Well, I could spearhead with a devel package. But I'd prefer to have a
Debian package to build on. Also to be as much as possible on correct
Debian packages.

If any action required, please post an update. you may also CC me
directly as I do not follow always day-to-day.

[Yaroslav Halchenko]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Tim Michelsen wrote:
> >> Are there any problems getting statsmodels updated through the linux
> >> distribution system with patsy as new dependency?
> Well, I could spearhead with a devel package. But I'd prefer to have a
> Debian package to build on. Also to be as much as possible on correct
> Debian packages.

btw -- interested in trying packaging/maintaining an official Debian
package of patsy? ;)

[josef...@gmail.com]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Tim Michelsen
<timmic...@gmx-topmail.de> wrote:
>>> https://code.launchpad.net/~pythonxy/+recipe/statsmodels-daily-current
>>>
> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/116878222/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-i386.statsmodels_0.5.0~ppa7~revno-1256~precise1_BUILDING.txt.gz
>>> patsy is missing as a dependency/requirement
>>
> I can easily add it once available as package.
>
>> since it is a new requirement ;-)
> Why can we not make it a recommended package?
> Statsmodels work also without it, right?

No, current master and 0.5 require patsy as a hard dependency.

That's the main reason I asked, to see whether it is easy to get
statsmodels through the Debian/Linux distribution channels with patsy
as requirement, when patsy is not yet accepted or available as Debian
package.

If not, then including patsy as foreign package inside statsmodels
would be possible for the release.

Josef

[Tim Michelsen]

>> Well, I could spearhead with a devel package. But I'd prefer to have a
>> Debian package to build on. Also to be as much as possible on correct
>> Debian packages.
>
> btw -- interested in trying packaging/maintaining an official Debian
> package of patsy? ;)

I am very freighted by the Debian "burocracy". I do not did all the
rules around.

I also never really used patsy...

Maybe I can package a devel package on the weekend.

[Skipper Seabold]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM, <josef...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Tim Michelsen
<timmic...@gmx-topmail.de> wrote:
>>> https://code.launchpad.net/~pythonxy/+recipe/statsmodels-daily-current
>>>
> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/116878222/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-i386.statsmodels_0.5.0~ppa7~revno-1256~precise1_BUILDING.txt.gz
>>> patsy is missing as a dependency/requirement
>>
> I can easily add it once available as package.
>
>> since it is a new requirement ;-)
> Why can we not make it a recommended package?
> Statsmodels work also without it, right?

No, current master and 0.5 require patsy as a hard dependency.

That's the main reason I asked, to see whether it is easy to get
statsmodels through the Debian/Linux distribution channels with patsy
as requirement, when patsy is not yet accepted or available as Debian
package.

If not, then including patsy as foreign package inside statsmodels
would be possible for the release.

I think including patsy in the release is the way to go. That way, we know the API is stable. It's written to work with 0.1 and that's what it does. If we need to update, we can update. If we want to revisit this later, we can. Seems like the least about of work for everyone since it's such a simple install. It could just drop-in and then edit one line of our setup.py. If you file a ticket, I/we will get it done for the release. Deadlines are looming but I hope to get back on top of things soon.

Skipper

[Tim Michelsen]

> Maybe I can package a devel package on the weekend.

please test and try the updated packages at:

https://code.launchpad.net/~pythonxy/+archive/pythonxy-devel

python-statsmodels now installs python-patsy as dependancy.