On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida <leoroch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > I see one major issue with this proposal: > > Currently, the fact that the versions are in a standard buildout > section, and subject to standard "extends" layering rules for > buildout, means we have two great features: > > 1. You could locally override the versions file by just providing a > few extra versions. > > 2. You could create partial buildout configurations for certain > components that specify versions for certain components, and compose > them with other configurations. > > An example that illustrates both: a buildout.cfg for Plone could > extend the versions.cfg file for Zope 2.12.<latest> (served from a > remote URL, no less) as well as its own versions.cfg (in this order). > The latter would provide version pins for Plone components as well as > tested overrides for more recent versions of Zope 2.12 components. > > Unless I misunderstand this proposal, there would could only ever be a > single versions.cfg file for any buildout. This would require a lot > more maintenance of this file than the current status quo.
No. The versions-file can be used with the existing mechanism. I tried, but apparently failed, to make this clear in the proposal. If both a versions file and a versions section is used, the versions section behaves as it does now and versions in the versions file override versions specified in the versions section. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
