Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread PieterB
On Friday 20 June 2003 01:19 am, Jean Jordaan wrote: There's only one possible way! A-A-P! (A good match for Ape, Shane ;) It's a replacement for make by Bram Moolenaar, the author of Vim, and it looks like it does a lot of things Right. Sorry, I haven't really been paying attention so

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Richard Jones
On Friday 20 June 2003 04:57 pm, PieterB wrote: On Friday 20 June 2003 01:19 am, Jean Jordaan wrote: There's only one possible way! A-A-P! (A good match for Ape, Shane ;) It's a replacement for make by Bram Moolenaar, the author of Vim, and it looks like it does a lot of things Right.

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Jean Jordaan
It *sounds* like it's being suggested that we replace make That's correct, though Aap can usefully do much more than make, such as fetching remote sources and managing CVS checkouts/-ins. Has anyone used SCons? http://www.scons.org/ Well, they feature neck-and-neck in July, so if someone (or

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Jean Jordaan
I think the default Zope install should not have dependencies other than that Python is required and the user has some shell system (bash/sh/MS batchfiles). ... and aap apparently ;) I'm thinking that ZC needs a more capable make replacement. That isn't quite the topic of this thread, but Aap

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:59:29AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: So, in any case, given that the ZC source tarball installer will not attempt to manage multiple instances (we'll leave that to Luca) here are the requirements I've gathered so far: - Add a --doc flag to configure - Add a

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:38:53PM +1000, Adrian van den Dries wrote: Well, as we all know, shell scripting kinda blows. There is no way that I know of to portably use an array in shell, and I wanted to eventually make it possible to use something other than bash to run the configure

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 08:57:34AM +0200, PieterB wrote: On the other hand some packages (such as my zopetest, or other rpm-alike things), may require other things. I like A-A-P, because I think that would make my installerfiles much cleaner. Aap has integrated support to fail if a program

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Chris McDonough
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 01:38, Adrian van den Dries wrote: You may be interested in Kenneth Almquist's ash (aka dash in Debian): Optimally the configure script will work in any bourne-shell-derived shell (e.g. the bourne shell on Solaris). With the distutils, ``--home`` is version-agnostic

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Shane Hathaway
Jean Jordaan wrote: It *sounds* like it's being suggested that we replace make That's correct, though Aap can usefully do much more than make, such as fetching remote sources and managing CVS checkouts/-ins. This is the kind of thing I'm interested in. I don't need a make replacement, I need

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Chris McDonough
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 03:55, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: Am I missing anything? I'd like to have the possibility to install any architecture dependant files in an different tree. I'm afraid I'll need to understand more about what debian considers architecture dependent. Can you

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:58:54AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: I'm afraid I'll need to understand more about what debian considers architecture dependent. Can you provide details about what this means? [There is nothing special about Debian and architecture dependent files] Dependent is

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-20 Thread Chris McDonough
OK, thanks, I thought this was it. In Zope's case, this just implies compiled Python libraries. This can normally be specified via the --platlib flat to setup.py, but as described in a prior message in this thread, the Zope setup.py overrides platlib in order to provide X-platform compatibility

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Dario Lopez-Kästen
- Original Message - From: Adrian van den Dries [EMAIL PROTECTED] May I respectfully ask why there is so much concern with such complicated setups? Surely a production environment (which is what any Zope distribution should aim for) will standardise on a software version? I have

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread PieterB
Chris wrote: We have make-driven software that creates us a tree via a single command by checking out various version of Python, Zope, etc. from CVS and compiling and installing them. Different versions of Zope and Python, etc. can be installed in opt and we use symlinks to manage versioning.

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Adrian van den Dries
On June 19, PieterB wrote: Could that make-driven software be made public? I'm currently trying to create similar Makefiles (for a new FreeBSD zope port) and would be interested in using ZC files. This sort of stuff is almost definitely deployment-specific (and quite likely ZC proprietary

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:26:51AM +1000, Adrian van den Dries wrote: Well, if you're going to have a policy shoot-out: [...] I think most of us would agree that .py(c) files are *libraries* and not *data files*. Data files would be the skeleton instance directory. Of course i do not agree,

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:08:12PM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: If you want to change your Zope controller to work with 2.7, I think you'll either be very happy (or very disappointed, seeing how much work you put in to creating your own config files) to know that Zope 2.7+ instances have

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Chris McDonough
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 02:57, PieterB wrote: Chris wrote: We have make-driven software that creates us a tree via a single command by checking out various version of Python, Zope, etc. from CVS and compiling and installing them. Different versions of Zope and Python, etc. can be installed

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Chris McDonough
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 10:14, Chris McDonough wrote: On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 02:57, PieterB wrote: Chris wrote: We have make-driven software that creates us a tree via a single command by checking out various version of Python, Zope, etc. from CVS and compiling and installing them.

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Chris McDonough
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 23:13, Adrian van den Dries wrote: Distribution install - most common:: ./configure.py --prefix=/usr \ --skel=/usr/share/zope/skel \ --doc=/usr/share/zope/doc mkzopeinstance.py /var/lib/zope/default ln -s

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Shane Hathaway
Chris McDonough wrote: On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 10:14, Chris McDonough wrote: On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 02:57, PieterB wrote: How do those files compare to the buildscript: http://cvs.zope.org/NZO_SiteLayout/buildout_zope_sandbox?cvsroot=Zope.org The NZO make-driven buildout is an early revision of what

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Chris McDonough
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 09:53, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:08:12PM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: I'm both disappointed and happy for the same reason :) When 2.7 will be out i'll adapt my zopectl to the new Zope installation procedure. Great. I'll keep it a

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Dan L. Pierson
--On Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:07:52 +1000 Adrian van den Dries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd advise against installing Zope library files into site-packages unless you put them in a site-packages subdirectory (like site-packages/zope270 or site-packages/zope271). Otherwise there will be no

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Jean Jordaan
There's only one possible way! A-A-P! (A good match for Ape, Shane ;) It's a replacement for make by Bram Moolenaar, the author of Vim, and it looks like it does a lot of things Right. http://www.a-a-p.org/index.html In fact, Aap would fit very well with Gentoo. Gentoo's emerge system takes care

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Thursday 19 June 2003 15:58, Shane Hathaway wrote: Has anyone tried extracting Gentoo's build system and using it for partial software distributions? That might be the way to go. I am now using Gentoo on all my servers and on this workstation. I find value in being able to manage Zope

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Shane Hathaway
Jean Jordaan wrote: There's only one possible way! A-A-P! (A good match for Ape, Shane ;) It's a replacement for make by Bram Moolenaar, the author of Vim, and it looks like it does a lot of things Right. Interesting. A-A-P seems to have similar use cases. I should take a serious look at it

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread PieterB
http://www.a-a-p.org/index.html This looks quite good! It has support python 2.2 support as well. I'll see if I can play with it. Pieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Adrian van den Dries
On June 19, Chris McDonough wrote: On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 23:13, Adrian van den Dries wrote: python2.1 configure.py --prefix=/opt/zope271-python21 (FWIW, configure is a shell script.) Yes, I knew that. I used the .py extension for all the scripts to be consistent, according to my earlier

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Chris McDonough
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 20:24, Adrian van den Dries wrote: On June 19, Chris McDonough wrote: On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 23:13, Adrian van den Dries wrote: python2.1 configure.py --prefix=/opt/zope271-python21 (FWIW, configure is a shell script.) Yes, I knew that. I used the .py

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Richard Jones
On Friday 20 June 2003 01:19 am, Jean Jordaan wrote: There's only one possible way! A-A-P! (A good match for Ape, Shane ;) It's a replacement for make by Bram Moolenaar, the author of Vim, and it looks like it does a lot of things Right. Sorry, I haven't really been paying attention so this

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-19 Thread Adrian van den Dries
On June 19, Chris McDonough wrote: On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 20:24, Adrian van den Dries wrote: Why not avoid that altogether and let the user supply the correct python? This is somewhat of a style choice OK, ZC's call. ;-) Well, as we all know, shell scripting kinda blows. There is no way

FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-18 Thread Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:23:15AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: Actually the scripts in $INSTANCE/bin aren't shell wrappers for things in $PREFIX/bin, they're shell wrappers for thing in $PREFIX/lib/python/Zope/Startup. But yes, they are shell wrappers. And so they would be copied for all

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-18 Thread Chris McDonough
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 13:18, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:23:15AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: Actually the scripts in $INSTANCE/bin aren't shell wrappers for things in $PREFIX/bin, they're shell wrappers for thing in $PREFIX/lib/python/Zope/Startup.

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-18 Thread Adrian van den Dries
On June 18, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: For what concern Debian, the intallation home will still be /usr/lib/zope untill python fully comply FHS[1] (http://python.org/sf/588756). I'll probably move it to /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages in future, but i'm still not sure. Well, if

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-18 Thread Adrian van den Dries
On June 18, Chris McDonough wrote: These files needn't be here really. There are two scripts: zopectl and runzope. They are convenience shell scripts that run zopectl.py or runzope.py scripts that live in a software home after setting certain envvars. Whether you run

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-18 Thread Chris McDonough
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 20:07, Adrian van den Dries wrote: Agreed; we can have a separate zopectl package that is dedicated to managing instances. I'm hopeful that Luca agrees. I'd advise against installing Zope library files into site-packages unless you put them in a site-packages

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-18 Thread Chris McDonough
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 19:26, Adrian van den Dries wrote: I think most of us would agree that .py(c) files are *libraries* and not *data files*. Data files would be the skeleton instance directory. To make matters clear, my concern about adhering to the FHS is limited to offering features

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-18 Thread Adrian van den Dries
On June 18, Chris McDonough wrote: (snip interesting insight into ZC's deployments) This is doubtless the most common scenario (or it should be). It is when things go right, but when they go wrong, it's fairly limiting to only be able to have a single version of Zope installed on your

Re: FHS, zopectl, #925, Re: [Zope-dev] 2.7 installation

2003-06-18 Thread Adrian van den Dries
On June 19, Adrian van den Dries wrote: Distribution install - most common:: ... Multiple pythons, zopes, instances - most complex:: Note that these aren't mutually exclusive: the porpoise of /usr/local is to allow a site-local hierarchy. That is, the *system* only has one version of the