Chris McDonough wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>> Alan Milligan wrote:
>>> I'm in the midst of rolling repoze out on our BastionLinux RPM's (at
>>> https://linux.last-bastion.net/LBN/up2date/plope/6 (repoze.* and zope.*)
>>> for *exactly* what files and versions are being shipped).
>>> We're at zope-2.9.9, the latest release that runs up plone-2.5.x. I've
>>> thus packaged up the required components on
>>> However, the zope.interface-3.4.0 is from a later version of Z3 than
>>> ships with Z2 (I think this is still at 3.3) and when zope.app.component
>>> from the Z2 tree is invoked through paster, it dies horribly when it
>>> can't find zope.interface.adapter.Surrogate - which appears to have
>>> vanished between releases. Downgrading to zope.interface-3.3.0, as
>>> shipped with zope-2.9.9 fixes this (insofar as zope2.wsgi now runs up
>>> from the command line).
>> Eek. You're right. I mispackaged. The zope.interface version up there now
>> the 3.2 version that ships with Zope 2.9. We maintain multiple indexes, and
>> haven't yet automated a buildbot to test them so it's exceedingly difficult
>> make sure they all work at all times. Apologies.
>>> Similarly, the ZODB3 version (3.7.2) is later than that shipped in
>>> zope-2.9.9. I don't expect any issues with this (yet at least) as I'm
>>> running vanilla zeo from zope-2.9.9
>> That doesn't cause any problem in our testing.
>>> Is this anomaly simply due to hoping that nobody will notice if the
>>> Z2.10 tarballs are foisted on Z2.9 users - or indeed are these genuinely
>>> required, and I'm about to enter module import hell?
>> No, I think you should be good now with the new distribution. Thanks for
>>> Note that the zope.proxy and zope.testing tarballs are similarly
>>> incorrect, but they too appear benign.
>> I also believe these are benign.
>> I'm currently running an easy_install to make sure.
> Well it *would* have worked if easy_install didn't go off to
> to find the latest zope.interface package due to a promiscuous
> distribution_links in the ZODB package. See also
> http://plope.com/Members/chrism/distribution_links_considered_harmful .. Ugh.
> I'll need to re-roll that ZODB egg without the dependency-links and put it up
> there. I'll post when that's done.
OK, the answer was:
- Reroll the ZODB3 tarball. A new tarball named
http://dist.repoze.org/zope2/2.9/ZODB3-126.96.36.199agendaless.tar.gz exists in both
of these indexes (and is preferred over the "old" ZODB3 egg by easy_install as
result of the .1agendaless):
- Replace the zope.interface-3.4-0.tar.gz distribution in the same two indexes
As a result, the each install ("easy_install -i
http://dist.repoze.org/zope2/2.9/simple repoze.zope2" and "easy_install -i
http://dist.repoze.org/plone/2.5.5/simple repoze.plone") now runs properly, and
a Zope or Plone site can be created after you go through the machinations of
installing from either index, respectively. No distribution is pulled from any
other source than from the dist.repoze.org index when using easy_install
the respective "top-level" distributions in that index. I have tested this
against both indexes.
Thanks for the heads up.
Repoze-dev mailing list