Hi Yuppie!
Previously yuppie wrote:
> Hi Wichert!
>
>
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >At the moment it is not possible to use skin layers in pure python
> >packages. This is caused by the DirectoryView implementation using
> >a minimal path name for the layer id. This path name is created
> >by CMF
Dieter Maurer wrote:
yuppie wrote at 2007-1-23 18:55 +0100:
...
Yes, I object. This is a hack that resolves the issue just for some
special use cases. We need a solution that works with python packages
anywhere in the python path.
And "packageresources"
(http://www.handshake.de/~dieter/pypro
yuppie wrote at 2007-1-23 18:55 +0100:
> ...
>Yes, I object. This is a hack that resolves the issue just for some
>special use cases. We need a solution that works with python packages
>anywhere in the python path.
And "packageresources"
(http://www.handshake.de/~dieter/pyprojects/packageresourc
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
At the moment it is not possible to use skin layers in pure python
packages. This is caused by the DirectoryView implementation using
a minimal path name for the layer id. This path name is created
by CMFCore.utils.minimalpath, which uses the ProductsPaths list of
director
Hi Wichert!
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
At the moment it is not possible to use skin layers in pure python
packages. This is caused by the DirectoryView implementation using
a minimal path name for the layer id. This path name is created
by CMFCore.utils.minimalpath, which uses the ProductsPaths li
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> The patch below fixes this by adding $INSTANCE_HOME/lib/python to the
> ProductsPaths list. This allows minimalpath to find python packages installed
> there.
>
> Are there any objections to commiting this to trunk?
I know we've had some larger discussions on this list re
