Re: [Zope-CMF] [Checkins] SVN: Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py - dependency cleanup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm wondering, ist it necessary to declare a dependency where we know that it is a required dependency for another dependency we already declare? Specifically, if CMFDefault is declared as dependency, is it necessary to also declare CMFCore because we know CMFDefault already declares it? jens On Feb 16, 2009, at 11:42 , Yvo Schubbe wrote: Log message for revision 96579: - dependency cleanup Changed: U Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py -=- Modified: Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py === --- Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py 2009-02-16 10:11:44 UTC (rev 96578) +++ Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py 2009-02-16 10:42:54 UTC (rev 96579) @@ -45,14 +45,19 @@ setup_requires=['eggtestinfo', ], install_requires=[ - #'Zope = 2.10.4', 'setuptools', + #'Zope2 = 2.10.4', + 'Products.CMFCore', 'Products.CMFDefault', - 'Products.DCWorkflow', 'Products.GenericSetup', ], - tests_require=['zope.testing=3.7.0', -], + tests_require=[ + 'zope.testing = 3.7.0', + 'Products.DCWorkflow', + ], + extras_require = dict( + test = ['Products.DCWorkflow'], + ), test_loader='zope.testing.testrunner.eggsupport:SkipLayers', test_suite='Products.%s.tests' % NAME, entry_points= ___ Checkins mailing list check...@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/checkins -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkmZVzUACgkQRAx5nvEhZLJ4OACggumqB1uszZgWL1Xs5qCMKDNY 2woAoKpVaHIuUnNhCjaoHyX35qpZcsHB =6ViM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [Checkins] SVN: Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py - dependency cleanup
Hi! Jens Vagelpohl wrote: I'm wondering, ist it necessary to declare a dependency where we know that it is a required dependency for another dependency we already declare? Specifically, if CMFDefault is declared as dependency, is it necessary to also declare CMFCore because we know CMFDefault already declares it? No. But as Hanno pointed out yesterday, it is good practice to specify all *direct* dependencies: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2009-February/034582.html The Zope2 package is an exception because it represents the Zope 2 platform and ships with a KGS. So direct dependencies on packages Zope2 also depends on should not be specified if Zope2 is specified as dependency. I thought that was consensus, but if you don't agree I'm fine with further discussions. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [Checkins] SVN: Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py - dependency cleanup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 16, 2009, at 13:29 , yuppie wrote: Jens Vagelpohl wrote: I'm wondering, ist it necessary to declare a dependency where we know that it is a required dependency for another dependency we already declare? Specifically, if CMFDefault is declared as dependency, is it necessary to also declare CMFCore because we know CMFDefault already declares it? No. But as Hanno pointed out yesterday, it is good practice to specify all *direct* dependencies: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2009-February/034582.html The Zope2 package is an exception because it represents the Zope 2 platform and ships with a KGS. So direct dependencies on packages Zope2 also depends on should not be specified if Zope2 is specified as dependency. I thought that was consensus, but if you don't agree I'm fine with further discussions. No, don't get me wrong, I did not signal any disagreement or agreement ;-) I was just wondering if there was a new set of best practices that I missed. I did not draw the line between the other discussion and your checkins at all, it did not strike me as related. Does anyone else have a specific opinion for this case, disregarding the five.localsitemanager discussion? jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkmZYK4ACgkQRAx5nvEhZLLq8wCeJEfA4DXKzauYg4Cl9qK2X83v WpkAoLX7504n+vjQI9ntqxgKhr1tfBHX =phKB -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [Checkins] SVN: Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py - dependency cleanup
Am 16.02.2009 um 13:08 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl: I'm wondering, ist it necessary to declare a dependency where we know that it is a required dependency for another dependency we already declare? Specifically, if CMFDefault is declared as dependency, is it necessary to also declare CMFCore because we know CMFDefault already declares it? hm, do we always *know* that? Unless dealing with known behemoths aka Zope2, I'd go with explicit is better than implicit and expect declarations for any import statement. Then again I'm still not convinced that the CMF itself isn't a mini- behemoth to be eaten tail, toenails and all. Charlie -- Charlie Clark Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-938-5360 GSM: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [Checkins] SVN: Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py - dependency cleanup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 16, 2009, at 13:50 , Charlie Clark wrote: Am 16.02.2009 um 13:08 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl: I'm wondering, ist it necessary to declare a dependency where we know that it is a required dependency for another dependency we already declare? Specifically, if CMFDefault is declared as dependency, is it necessary to also declare CMFCore because we know CMFDefault already declares it? hm, do we always *know* that? Unless dealing with known behemoths aka Zope2, I'd go with explicit is better than implicit and expect declarations for any import statement. Yes, that's a good point. Then again I'm still not convinced that the CMF itself isn't a mini- behemoth to be eaten tail, toenails and all. It depends on how you look at the dependencies. If you mean installation dependencies then I think there's been great progress disentangling the different packages. If you mean I don't need Y for installing X, but really, X is not all that useful without Y that's a different issue. But that's off-topic for this thread ;-) jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkmZYjAACgkQRAx5nvEhZLIEmACeNPlN1ngSkfzSzyhu3Lr3WJ70 eRAAoIzMXWda+p7qTvzPPdBwreubx+3B =ZH9k -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [Checkins] SVN: Products.CMFCalendar/trunk/setup.py - dependency cleanup
Jens Vagelpohl wrote at 2009-2-16 13:48 +0100: ... Does anyone else have a specific opinion for this case, disregarding the five.localsitemanager discussion? Dependancies should be as loose as possible. If a component uses CMFDefault but only indirectly CMFCore, it should specify CMFDefault as a dependency but not CMFCore. If it explicitely uses both CMFDefault as well as CMFCore, specifying both may be more future proof. -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
