On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Gary Poster <gary.pos...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
... >> My preferance is that buildout provide isolated and non-isolated modes >> and that the isolation apply equally to recipes, extensions, and eggs >> installed by parts. > Having fought through all this, I really think having separate isolation controls for the buildout (buildout, recipes, extensions) versus the things that are built by parts is the right way to go. It's two very different domains, and the people writing the two kinds of code are often completely separate. I don't want to make work for you, but I don't understand what issues you fought. Are there any links you can give that might allow me to get this for myself? > As a meta comment, from the peanut gallery , I'm concerned about the buildout 2 plans (where "buildout 2" means "package name change") because they remind me of a couple of other similar historical changes that have permanently (or, at least, so far, often for years) divided communities. The forking is entirely your prerogative, of course. I wasn't planning on a fork, a name change, or to do anything disruptive. My main desire would be to try to see if I can simplify the implementation, *especially* wrt tests. The reason for the "2" would be mainly to change some defaults in non-backward-compatable ways, including: - Isolated by default - Prefer final by default - unzip by default > As to the practical issue of what to do now, here are options, working up to > your stated preference. ... > 2) Built eggs are non-isolated by default if you use zc.recipe.egg. I don't know what you mean by "built eggs". ... Jim -- Jim Fulton _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
