On 17 April 2010 00:12, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote:
> -----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:
> Maybe we should just renew the request to push PILwoTk to PyPI and
> update our dependencies.
>  https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2007-October/029968.html
Except... if someone has PIL installed globally (e.g. via OS
packages), won't these two conflict?
And even then, we'd be left with the naming confusion and possibly a
"which PIL do you have" type question that'll confuse newbies quite a
Repoze-dev mailing list