--On 5. November 2005 21:41:54 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The makefile is a wrapper around setup.py as well as mkzopeinstance. It
is also capable of creating release tarballs.
-1 on removing configure / make / make install dance unless there is
some reason to do so
On 6 Nov 2005, at 03:41, Chris McDonough wrote:
configure
also allows you to install multiple times from a pristine source
directory without changing the source directory, which I (and others,
because they've told me they do) make use of.
I use that a lot myself.
-1 for removing it from me
On 11/4/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having said that, I don't really like the configure/make farce myself.
Farce?
I'd be happy to get rid of it. I'm also happy to defer to the vocal
majority. Maybe it's worth revisiting this, which is why the provocative
subject. :)
I read
--On 4. November 2005 11:27:10 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most people who download Zope 2 are not Python programmers. Many of them
become Python programmers later. I think this is a big part of Zope 2's
value proposition that we haven't matched in Zope 3 yet.
Having said that,
Am Samstag, den 05.11.2005, 13:23 +0100 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On 11/4/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having said that, I don't really like the configure/make farce myself.
Farce?
I'd be happy to get rid of it. I'm also happy to defer to the vocal
majority. Maybe it's
On 11/5/05, Tino Wildenhain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The usual setup.py from distutils to make it more pythonic.
The install.py in the root of the distribution is actually a
conventional setup.py. Would it be helpful to keep the setup.py name?
We renamed it to encourage the configure/make
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 11/4/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having said that, I don't really like the configure/make farce myself.
Farce?
We aren't running the real configure. We aren't really using make.
We're just using make as a wrapper around setup.py.
I'd be happy to
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 4. November 2005 11:27:10 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most people who download Zope 2 are not Python programmers. Many of them
become Python programmers later. I think this is a big part of Zope 2's
value proposition that we haven't matched in Zope 3
On 11/5/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's main benefit is that it leverages a familiar pattern, but
I'm not convinced that it's worth it. Also, as tools like rpm and
deb become more widely used, I'm not sure how familar the configure/make
dance is. Other than Python and Zope, I
I wasn't arguing that configure/make was hard to use. I'm arguing
that it's something extra to maintain and is just silly.
It's main benefit is that it leverages a familiar pattern, but
I'm not convinced that it's worth it. Also, as tools like rpm and
deb become more widely used, I'm not
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 12:14 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 11/4/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having said that, I don't really like the configure/make farce myself.
Farce?
We aren't running the real configure.
If you mean autotools, that's right,
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
What changes are those? A fresh Zope trunk checkout works for me. Here's
what I did:
$ svn co svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/repos/main/Zope/trunk
Zope-trunk
$ cd Zope-trunk
$ ./configure
$ make
That worked for me (though I usually don't do
Hi Philipp!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Log message for revision 39848:
Merge philikon-zope32-integration branch.
Great! This is a big step forward.
* Moved to a zpkgutils-based build system, as the Zope 3.2 extension modules
require to be built with it. If everything goes
yuppie wrote:
* Moved to a zpkgutils-based build system, as the Zope 3.2 extension
modules
require to be built with it. If everything goes ahead as planned,
the release
tarball will also be built with zpkgutils (some work has also been
done in
that direction).
That part
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
That worked for me (though I usually don't do the configure; make dance,
but just do an in-place build with python setup.py build -i; see also
below).
Sorry, I meant
$ python setup.py build_ext -i
That's what make all does on Zope 3 and now on Zope 2 as
Hi Philipp!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
That part seems to be work in progress. I needed some time and manual
changes to set up an in-place instance for a fresh sandbox.
What changes are those? A fresh Zope trunk checkout works for me. Here's
what I did:
$ svn co svn+ssh://[EMAIL
yuppie wrote:
Hi Philipp!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
That part seems to be work in progress. I needed some time and manual
changes to set up an in-place instance for a fresh sandbox.
What changes are those? A fresh Zope trunk checkout works for me. Here's
what I did:
$ svn co
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
* Moved to a zpkgutils-based build system, as the Zope 3.2 extension
modules
require to be built with it. If everything goes ahead as planned,
the release
tarball will also be built with zpkgutils (some work has also been
done in
that
Jim Fulton wrote:
What changes are those? A fresh Zope trunk checkout works for me. Here's
what I did:
$ svn co svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/repos/main/Zope/trunk
Zope-trunk
$ cd Zope-trunk
$ ./configure
$ make
That worked for me (though I usually don't do the configure; make
19 matches
Mail list logo
