-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martin Aspeli wrote: >> Easy or not doesn't matter: he flat refuses. > > To play devil's advocate: Why don't we just fork PIL entirely? > > I appreciate that a 1.1.7 came out recently, but before that 1.1.6 > lasted three years. I doubt it'd be hard to keep up with a fork. The > advantage is that we could package it appropriately, release the new > package on PYPI, and avoid all this confusion with names. > > We would need to come up with a new namespace (i.e. not PIL) and > adjust our code in Plone and elsewhere to use this new namespace. But > that's probably less work than having this debate every few months.
You don't need to change the package name (the imports), just the distribution nname (the dependencies). Jim's 'PILwoTk' package already does this: http://download.zope.org/distribution/PILwoTk-1.1.6.4.tar.gz Maybe we should just renew the request to push PILwoTk to PyPI[1] and update our dependencies. [1] https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2007-October/029968.html Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkvIjC0ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ61HgCg0ppsEK/Y3YCDHb5EWzl4lmK5 EMcAnjubj/q26EpQkYMUmdWLhVXgWPsW =OHMv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
