Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007, at 22:13 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
You don't have to. You can still ship Plone 3.0 as a traditional
tarball for now, though not one for INSTANCE/Products but one for
INSTANCE/lib/python. In that tarball, you hav
Daniel Nouri wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> It is very interesting. What worries me a bit is how we eggify the
>> existing products. Perhaps we need a script to do that. It would almost
>> certainly introduce breakage of a lot of svn:externals, since the svn
>> layout is different. We'd also depe
On 3 Feb 2007, at 20:17 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I realize Plone 3.0 will ship with both packages and old-style
products. Recently I wrote a proposal that should alleviate this
problem by making it possible to deploy products as eggs [1]. I
thought that this w
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> It is very interesting. What worries me a bit is how we eggify the
> existing products. Perhaps we need a script to do that. It would almost
> certainly introduce breakage of a lot of svn:externals, since the svn
> layout is different. We'd also depend on Zope (e.g. PAS) and
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I realize Plone 3.0 will ship with both packages and old-style products.
Recently I wrote a proposal that should alleviate this problem by making
it possible to deploy products as eggs [1]. I thought that this would
become relevant only for Plone 3.5.
Now Dani
