-----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

Reply via email to