We Keep Coding

Install OpenCV from source or via Pip?

I've seen 2 ways of installing OpenCV (there might be more ways which I don't know):
Installing from the source
Installing with pip: pip install opencv-python
My question is, why we need to install OpenCV from the source while we can simply install it using pip? Since people are using both of them, both must be useful. If so, there are any conditions for selecting one of them?

I will list out the differences between both
1.
Installation using pip
Installation is done at the default location where all the python packages resides.
Installation from Source
Installation location is provided by the developer.
2.
Installation using pip
In terms of performance, the packages installed might run slower because of the hidden conflicts between features.
Installation from Source
The developer can select the optimization flags during the compilation of packages which are responsible for the fast performance of library.
3.
Installation using pip
The developers can neither add nor remove features provided in the installation done by pip.
Installation from Source
The developer has all the rights to add or remove the features during the installation of library.
4.
Installation using pip
The package manager will do the work on behalf of developer. Package Manager is also responsible for taking care of library updation.
Installation from Source
The developers are responsible for feature selection and updation of library. They must be aware of new package updates, latest security patches etc, to keep themselves updated about the library.
Hope this helps you!

OpenCV is always under development, and the thing is some parts of the library is not going to published, due to compatibility and copyright issues, but if you use the source then you can have all the capabilities that you need. SURF & SIFT are examples of this problem.

Why Should Homebrew be used to Install Python?

I have been reading a lot of the tutorials around the web and answers on the site about using Homebrew. When it comes to Python though, the advice leaves me with more questions than answers.
I understand the how, but none of the answers I have seen so far have really explained the why behind using Homebrew to install Python and what the benefits are to installing Python with Homebrew as opposed to using OS-X installers provided by the Python Foundation?
The newest versions of the installers from Python and the current implementation of PIP seem to be working pretty well, so I would really appreciate any input on my question. I have worked with Python for a while but from more of a tactical, one off problem solving perspective and I am brand new to tools like Brew and version control software such as Git. I am trying to get up the learning curve. Finding an answer to why I would choose to go with a Homebrew install over just heading over to python.org and downloading from them and then using pip to install packages might help me to understand the benefits of a tool like Homebrew.
So I guess, what does Homebrew give me that going through the installation put in place by TPF does not?
Are there advantages/disadvantages to where Homebrew installs Python and Python packages over the /Library/Frameworks/ and the site-packages folder within that framework?
Though this last question is too broad and likely out of scope, if anyone would also address or provide a link to a good answer on what the benefits are of using Homebrew in general, I'd appreciate it?
Thank you,

The big advantage of using a package manager like Homebrew is it makes it easier to keep your Python installation up to date. If you download Python from the website, then to update it means you'll need to go back to the website and download a new copy of Python (or whatever it is that you need to update that could have been installed with Homebrew).
Also, when downloading installers, I find they tend to clutter up my downloads folder and require me to periodically clean up unused files. I'd rather spend my time coding instead of managing my disk space usage.
When it comes to updating any package with Homebrew, the command is simple:
brew upgrade
And this will update all outdated packages that you installed with Brew.
Now, this isn't something unique to Homebrew. Macports, PIP, npm, Maven, and other package management tools are also able to manage the versions of modules or tools you install.
For more information, see Safari Books Online - Keeping Your Homebrew Up To Date.

A few reasons not to use system python on OS X from this post,
Apple doesn’t always do a good job on keeping the Python runtime environment up to date,
it can be cumbersome to play with permissions just to install third-party Python libraries,
finally, Apple has a tendency to wipe-out your site-packages with every major OS upgrade.
The use of an independent package manager for Python modules, such as Homebrew, conda, Macports, ets. is thus preferred.

Is there a more efficient way to satisfy project dependencies than pip?

I work on a system and the hosting guys don't want to use an install script that uses pip. Now we have a large pip requirements file that install the dependencies. Is there any other way to do it than using pip? Can it be done using yum or apt-get ? We are using Linux.

For god's sake, please do not fall back to using the distribution's package manager just because your hosting guys do not understand what pip+virtualenv is good for.
Python packages in Linux distribution repositories are often outdated and may come with quirks that other Python package authors did not plan for. This is especially true for Python packages with compiled code. If a documentation tells you that a certain dependency should be obtained directly from PyPI via pip, then you better follow that requirement. Convince your hosting guys to use the right tools, namely pip combined with virtualenv. The latter will create an isolated environment and make sure that the system will stay clean (really, nobody needs to do a sudo pip install, which probably is the thing your hosting guys are afraid of).

Migrating to pip+virtualenv from setuptools

So pip and virtualenv sound wonderful compared to setuptools. Being able to uninstall would be great. But my project is already using setuptools, so how do I migrate? The web sites I've been able to find so far are very vague and general. So here's an anthology of questions after reading the main web sites and trying stuff out:
First of all, are virtualenv and pip supposed to be in a usable state by now? If not, please disregard the rest as the ravings of a madman.
How should virtualenv be installed? I'm not quite ready to believe it's as convoluted as explained elsewhere.
Is there a set of tested instructions for how to install matplotlib in a virtual environment? For some reason it always wants to compile it here instead of just installing a package, and it always ends in failure (even after build-dep which took up 250 MB of disk space). After a whole bunch of warnings it prints src/mplutils.cpp:17: error: ‘vsprintf’ was not declared in this scope.
How does either tool interact with setup.py? pip is supposed to replace easy_install, but it's not clear whether it's a drop-in or more complicated relationship.
Is virtualenv only for development mode, or should the users also install it?
Will the resulting package be installed with the minimum requirements (like the current egg), or will it be installed with sources & binaries for all dependencies plus all the build tools, creating a gigabyte monster in the virtual environment?
Will the users have to modify their $PATH and $PYTHONPATH to run the resulting package if it's installed in a virtual environment?
Do I need to create a script from a text string for virtualenv like in the bad old days?
What is with the #egg=Package URL syntax? That's not part of the standard URL, so why isn't it a separate parameter?
Where is #rev included in the URL? At the end I suppose, but the documentation is not clear about this ("You can also include #rev in the URL").
What is supposed to be understood by using an existing requirements file as "as a sort of template for the new file"? This could mean any number of things.

Wow, that's quite a set of questions. Many of them would really deserve their own SO question with more details. I'll do my best:
First of all, are virtualenv and pip
supposed to be in a usable state by
now?
Yes, although they don't serve everyone's needs. Pip and virtualenv (along with everything else in Python package management) are far from perfect, but they are widely used and depended upon nonetheless.
How should virtualenv be installed?
I'm not quite ready to believe it's as
convoluted as explained elsewhere.
The answer you link is complex because it is trying to avoid making any changes at all to your global Python installation and install everything in ~/.local instead. This has some advantages, but is more complex to setup. It's also installing virtualenvwrapper, which is a set of convenience bash scripts for working with virtualenv, but is not necessary for using virtualenv.
If you are on Ubuntu, aptitude install python-setuptools followed by easy_install virtualenv should get you a working virtualenv installation without doing any damage to your global python environment (unless you also had the Ubuntu virtualenv package installed, which I don't recommend as it will likely be an old version).
Is there a set of tested instructions
for how to install matplotlib in a
virtual environment? For some reason
it always wants to compile it here
instead of just installing a package,
and it always ends in failure (even
after build-dep which took up 250 MB
of disk space). After a whole bunch of
warnings it prints
src/mplutils.cpp:17: error: ‘vsprintf’
was not declared in this scope.
It "always wants to compile" because pip, by design, installs only from source, it doesn't install pre-compiled binaries. This is a controversial choice, and is probably the primary reason why pip has seen widest adoption among Python web developers, who use more pure-Python packages and commonly develop and deploy in POSIX environments where a working compilation chain is standard.
The reason for the design choice is that providing precompiled binaries has a combinatorial explosion problem with different platforms and build architectures (including python version, UCS-2 vs UCS-4 python builds, 32 vs 64-bit...). The way easy_install finds the right binary package on PyPI sort of works, most of the time, but doesn't account for all these factors and can break. So pip just avoids that issue altogether (replacing it with a requirement that you have a working compilation environment).
In many cases, packages that require C compilation also have a slower-moving release schedule and it's acceptable to simply install OS packages for them instead. This doesn't allow working with different versions of them in different virtualenvs, though.
I don't know what's causing your compilation error, it works for me (on Ubuntu 10.10) with this series of commands:
virtualenv --no-site-packages tmp
. tmp/bin/activate
pip install numpy
pip install -f http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/matplotlib/matplotlib/matplotlib-1.0.1/matplotlib-1.0.1.tar.gz matplotlib
The "-f" link is necessary to get the most recent version, due to matplotlib's unusual download URLs on PyPI.
How does either tool interact with
setup.py? pip is supposed to replace
easy_install, but it's not clear
whether it's a drop-in or more
complicated relationship.
The setup.py file is a convention of distutils, the Python standard library's package management "solution." distutils alone is missing some key features, and setuptools is a widely-used third-party package that "embraces and extends" distutils to provide some additional features. setuptools also uses setup.py. easy_install is the installer bundled with setuptools. Setuptools development stalled for several years, and distribute was a fork of setuptools to fix some longstanding bugs. Eventually the fork was resolved with a merge of distribute back into setuptools, and setuptools development is now active again (with a new maintainer).
distutils2 was a mostly-rewritten new version of distutils that attempted to incorporate the best ideas from setuptools/distribute, and was supposed to become part of the Python standard library. Unfortunately this effort failed, so for the time being setuptools remains the de facto standard for Python packaging.
Pip replaces easy_install, but it does not replace setuptools; it requires setuptools and builds on top of it. Thus it also uses setup.py.
Is virtualenv only for development
mode, or should the users also install
it?
There's no single right answer to that; it can be used either way. In the end it's really your user's choice, and your software ideally should be able to be installed inside or out of a virtualenv; though you might choose to document and emphasize one approach or the other. It depends very much on who your users are and what environments they are likely to need to install your software into.
Will the resulting package be
installed with the minimum
requirements (like the current egg),
or will it be installed with sources &
binaries for all dependencies plus all
the build tools, creating a gigabyte
monster in the virtual environment?
If a package that requires compilation is installed via pip, it will need to be compiled from source. That also applies to any dependencies that require compilation.
This is unrelated to the question of whether you use a virtualenv. easy_install is available by default in a virtualenv and works just fine there. It can install pre-compiled binary eggs, just like it does outside of a virtualenv.
Will the users have to modify their
$PATH and $PYTHONPATH to run the
resulting package if it's installed in
a virtual environment?
In order to use anything installed in a virtualenv, you need to use the python binary in the virtualenv's bin/ directory (or another script installed into the virtualenv that references this binary). The most common way to do this is to use the virtualenv's activate or activate.bat script to temporarily modify the shell PATH so the virtualenv's bin/ directory is first. Modifying PYTHONPATH is not generally useful or necessary with virtualenv.
Do I need to create a script from a
text string for virtualenv like in the
bad old days?
No.
What is with the #egg=Package URL
syntax? That's not part of the
standard URL, so why isn't it a
separate parameter?
The "#egg=projectname-version" URL fragment hack was first introduced by setuptools and easy_install. Since easy_install scrapes links from the web to find candidate distributions to install for a given package name and version, this hack allowed package authors to add links on PyPI that easy_install could understand, even if they didn't use easy_install's standard naming conventions for their files.
Where is #rev included in the URL? At
the end I suppose, but the
documentation is not clear about this
("You can also include #rev in the
URL").
A couple sentences after that quoted fragment there is a link to "read the requirements file format to learn about other features." The #rev feature is fully documented and demonstrated there.
What is supposed to be understood by
using an existing requirements file as
"as a sort of template for the new
file"? This could mean any number of
things.
The very next sentence says "it will keep the packages listed in devel-req.txt in order and preserve comments." I'm not sure what would be a better concise description.

I can't answer all your questions, but hopefully the following helps.
Both virtualenv and pip are very usable. Many Python devs use these everyday.
Since you have a working easy_install, the easiest way to install both is the following:
easy_install pip
easy_install virtualenv
Once you have virtualenv, just type virtualenv yourEnvName and you'll get your new python virtual environment in a directory named yourEnvName.
From there, it's as easy as source yourEnvName/bin/activate and the virtual python interpreter will be your active. I know nothing about matplotlib, but following the installation interactions should work out ok unless there are weird hard-coded path issues.
If you can install something via easy_install you can usually install it via pip. I haven't found anything that easy_install could do that pip couldn't.
I wouldn't count on users being able to install virtualenv (it depends on who your users are). Technically, a virtual python interpreter can be treated as a real one for most cases. It's main use is not cluttering up the real interpreter's site-packages and if you have two libraries/apps that require different and incompatible versions of the same library.
If you or a user install something in a virtualenv, it won't be available in other virtualenvs or the system Python interpreter. You'll need to use source /path/to/yourvirtualenv/bin/activate command to switch to a virtual environment you installed the library on.
What they mean by "as a sort of template for the new file" is that the pip freeze -r devel-req.txt > stable-req.txt command will create a new file stable-req.txt based on the existing file devel-req.txt. The only difference will be anything installed not already specified in the existing file will be in the new file.

State of Python Packaging: Buildout, Distribute, Distutils, EasyInstall, etc

The last time I had to worry about installing Python packages was two years ago working with Enthought, NumPy and MayaVi2. That experience gave me lingering nightmares related to quirky behavior installing & updating Python packages in non-standard locations (in $HOME/usr/local2.6/, for example).
Anyway, my work is taking me back to installing various Python packages. The CheeseShop Tutorial mentions DistUtils and EasyInstall in addition to Buildout! I am having a hard time finding one place that compares these (and other) PyPi installation tools, so I am hoping to tap into the StackOverflow community: What are the strengths & weaknesses of each installation tool?

First of all, regardless of installation tool you decide on, start using virtualenv --no-site-packages! That way, python packages are not installed globally and you can easily get back to where you were in old as well as new projects.
Now, your comparison is a little bit apples-to-pears as the tools you list are not mutually exclusive. However, I can wholly recommend Buildout. It will install python packages as well as other stuff and lets you automate installation and deployment of (complex) projects.
Also, I recommend looking into Fabric as a means to automate administrative tasks.

I've done quiet a bit of research on this topic(a couple of weeks worth) before settling down on using buildout for all of my projects.
DistUtils and EasyInstall in addition to Buildout!
The difficulty in creating one place to compare all of these tools is that they're all part of a same tool chain and are used together to create a predictable, reliable and flexible tool set.
For example, easy_install is used to install distutils packages from pypi(cheeseshop) to your system Python's site-packages directory. This drastically simplifies installation of packages to your system/global sys.path.
easy_install is very convenient for packages that are consistent for all projects. But, I find that I prefer to use system's easy_install to install packages that projects do not depend on. For example, github-cli I use with every project, because it allows me to interact with project's Github Issues from command line. I use this with projects, but it's for convenience and the project itself does not have dependancy on this package.
For managing project's dependancies, I use buildout. Buildout allows you to indicate specifically what version of packages your project depends on. I prefer buildout over pip-requirements.txt because buildout is declarative. With pip, you install the packages and at the end of the development you generate the requirements.txt file. With Buildout on the other hand, you modify the buildout.cfg before the package egg is added to your project. This forces me to be conscious of what packages I'm adding to the project.
Now, there is a matter of virtualenv. One of the most publicized features of virtualenv is obviously --no-site-packages option. I have not found that option to be particularly useful, because I use buildout. Buildout manages the sys.path and includes only the packages I ask tell it to include. It also, includes everything in system Python's site-packages but since I don't have anything there that I use in projects, I never have conflicts.
Also, I find that --no-site-packages only hinders my development process, because some packages I install using my sistem's packaging system. Usually, anything that has C libraries that need to be compiled, I install through the system's packaging system.
In the project's fabfile.py I include test function to test for presence of system packages that I install through system's package manager.
In summary, here is how I use these tools:
System's Package Manager(apt-get, yam, port, fink ...)
I use one of these to install python versions that I need on this system. I also use it to install packages like lxml which include c libraries.
easy_install
I use to install packages from pypi that I use on all projects, but projects are not dependant on these packages.
buildout
I use to manage dependancies of a project.
In my experience, this workflow has been very flexible, portable and easy to work with.

Distribute is a new fork of setuptools (easy_install), which should also be considered. Even Guido recommends it.
Buildout is orthogonal to the packaging --- you can use buildout with distribute.

Whenever I need to remind myself of the state of play, I look at these as a starting point:
The State of Python Packaging, a response to:
On packaging, linked from:
Tools of the Modern Python Hacker

I can't easily help you with finding the strength, but I can make it a bit harder, since it also depends on the platform you want to use.
For example if you need to install python packages on Gentoo (GNU/Liunx) based computers, you can easily use g-pypi to create ebuilds for all packages which use distutils (rather: a setup.py). That way they get completely integrated into your system and can be added, updated and removed like all your other tools. But it naturally only works for Gentoo-based systems.
Also you can use yolk to find out about all packages installed via easy_install on your system (not only on Gentoo).
When I write code, I simply use distutils (because it allows building portage ebuilds very easily) and sometimes basic setuptools features, or organize my programs so people can just download and run them from the program folder (ideally just unpack the source archive / clone the repository somewhere). This isn't the perfect solution, but until the core python team decides which way they want to move, I don't want to fix onto a path (anymore) which might disappear.