Derek Broughton <[email protected]> writes: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > >> On 3/20/10 15:33 , Derek Broughton wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for this discussion - I'm loathe to even test Plone4 at the >>> moment beccause I don't know enough about this sort of change. >>> >>> Surely, though, dependencies on something like CMFCore should be >>> fulfilled by declaring the dependency on Plone. >> >> They are, but you should never rely on that: Plone might be modified >> to not use CMFCore anymore itself, and your package would suddenly >> break. For Plone and CMFCore that is not very likely short term, but >> in general you should never rely on indirect dependencies. They >> *will* hurt you at some point. > > Ah, but I rather look at it the opposite way - I _should_ rely on > indirect dependencies for something like CMFCore, because I only use > it as required in Plone. If plone was to drop that dependency and use > something else (specifically this _did_ happen with CMFCore > Permissions - at least the module moved), I _want_ my product to break > and require me to fix my code. The absolutely last thing I want is > for my code to continue to import something that will only be used by > my own products while everybody else is doing something different.
+1 Well said, I've often thought this when I've heard the above install_requires dogma. Ross _______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers
