Re: [Zope-dev] Packaging Zope for Fedora
--On 21. März 2008 13:39:08 -0700 Timothy Selivanow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 20:09 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote: Hi, speaking as the Zope 2 release manager: I am strongly opposed against splitting Zope yourself into different packages and modules. With Zope 2 depending from various Zope 3 packages (roughly 80-90) we have already the situation to keep track which packages belong together. My concern is more with striping out the non-Zope pieces. If there are pieces of Zope that are useful outside of Zope (e.g. in some other project, or someones personal code...) I thought it would be nice to offer those as a separate piece so that someone could use just that piece. Having 80-90 different RPMs _would_ be rather unmaintainable. I'd only pull out the first few useful ones, and then others by-demand. My biggest concern is removing the non-Zope parts. In general we want to get rid of 3rd-party packages we don't want to maintain on our own. Right now we have several 3rd-party packages like Docutils in our svn for several reasons. Some of those packages are basically frozen (because we made local changes e.g. for security reasons). So if you rip out those packages you have to guarantee that they will _never_ be updated by a new official package (because local changes might get lost). On the other hand you must ensure that changes to our local 3rd-party packages will be available through your packaging mechanism. As said: this is a challenging task for us right now - it will be even more challenging and more error-prone for outsiders. As far as Zope2 is concerned, I'll cross that bridge later. Newest technology is /generally/ the focus of Fedora. This will become even more complicated when each Zope 3 package will have its own life-cycle. I doubt that you as a package can keep track in a reliable way with those requirements. It is somewhat hard for me to follow. The Eclipse project has done an awesome job, and so has Fedora in keeping up with it (they actually work very closely together). I'm not concerned with ripping Zope /completely/ apart, but rather I thought /some/ parts might be useful by themselves, like the ZODB for example. Since Zope (2+3) are officially only blessed for Python 2.4 you'll have problems if you're going with the newest Python 2.5 or even 2.6 version. The trend in all Zope-related projects (Zope 2,3, Grok, Plone) is definitely: self-contained installation. Why self-contained? Different projects require different modules in different versions. Messing a Python installation with e.g. ZODB from different versions will end up in an disaster. So the message of the Zope community is in general: keep your Python installation clean and use zc.buildout or virtualenv for installing your other modules within an isolated environment. This is meanwhile considered best-practice. Using Python eggs and easy_install you have _the official_ tools in your hand for installing 3rd-party packages..that's the Pythonic way to do it, not using some distro packaging tool. So why can't you leave the Zope source packages as they are? Splitting up Zope into even more packages is even more error-prone. Re-packaged Zope distributions always raised more problems in the past than they really solved. The deployment for Zope-based applications is nowadays based on zc.buildout. So, are you saying that you would rather Zope not be in Fedora, or any other distro, and just leave it up to the user? This was never my point. For me it would make more sense that the packages would take the official release and re-package it as a whole without splitting it up. Dependency management should happen on our side as a whole, not on the distribution site. I don't know how important Zope distro packages are for users. My personal impression is: not so important. Zope packages at this point might be good for getting into touch with Zope but for deployment packages are basically no used - but correct me if I should be wrong. Since a while we have tools in place to bootstrap Zope 2/3 projects, Plone installations and Grok installations very easily and in a reliable way. I know that those approaches don't comply directly with your package mechanisms but I would expect that the offical installation and deployment stories by the Zope community should be taken into account (in some way). Serious solutions providers never go with distribution-specific packages. Some do, but that's not the focus of me packaging Zope. Since Fedora's focus is not for production (yes, people do use Fedora in production, e.g. NASA, but that is their onus), but rather development and blazing new trails. This would provide more code and utilities for people to use and experiment with. See above. Distro specific package are perhaps another change for gettting into touch with Zope but I am not sure how important that is. I can imagine that people hear of Zope technology and
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.interface compatibility question
--On 21. März 2008 23:17:51 +0100 Felix Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope this is the right list for my question related to zope.interface: I use some (non-zope) software which uses zope.interface (currently 3.0.1). Now there is another software which needs a newer version of zope.interface. Is the zope.interface library (3.4) backwards compatible with 3.0.1? Can I expect that the old software will still work if I install the new library? The best thing is: try it out! Since your application has unittests, it should be easy to verify the functionality against a new version :-) -aj pgpCXM5z0w0Lq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: zope.interface compatibility question
Andreas Jung schrieb: The best thing is: try it out! Since your application has unittests, it should be easy to verify the functionality against a new version :-) The problem is more complicated unfortunately: I want to use z3c.rml which needs zope.schema, zope.interface and other packages. Fedora currently ships the old zope.interface (3.0) which seems to be too old for zope.schema 3.4. I built RPM packages for myself but thought about submitting these to Fedora. Therefore I have an undefined set of applications possible using zope.interface 3.0 (and relying on this version). Even if my custom application has a very good unit test coverage, this does not help the Fedora Project. On the other hand if there was a commitment to a stable (downwards compatible) API in 3.x, I think it would be much easier to get my RPMs into Fedora. fs smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: zope.interface compatibility question
--On 22. März 2008 11:00:00 +0100 Felix Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung schrieb: The best thing is: try it out! Since your application has unittests, it should be easy to verify the functionality against a new version :-) The problem is more complicated unfortunately: I want to use z3c.rml which needs zope.schema, zope.interface and other packages. Fedora currently ships the old zope.interface (3.0) which seems to be too old for zope.schema 3.4. I built RPM packages for myself but thought about submitting these to Fedora. Therefore I have an undefined set of applications possible using zope.interface 3.0 (and relying on this version). Even if my custom application has a very good unit test coverage, this does not help the Fedora Project. On the other hand if there was a commitment to a stable (downwards compatible) API in 3.x, I think it would be much easier to get my RPMs into Fedora. Use buildout or virtualenv and don't care about your package restrictions. -aj pgpucyQaWNdj8.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 5 OK
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Mar 21 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Sat Mar 22 12:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 21 21:54:07 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009285.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 21 21:55:38 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009286.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 21 21:57:08 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009287.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 21 21:58:38 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009288.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 21 22:00:08 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009289.html ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: zope.interface compatibility question
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:00AM +0100, Felix Schwarz wrote: Andreas Jung schrieb: The best thing is: try it out! Since your application has unittests, it should be easy to verify the functionality against a new version :-) The problem is more complicated unfortunately: I want to use z3c.rml which needs zope.schema, zope.interface and other packages. Fedora currently ships the old zope.interface (3.0) which seems to be too old for zope.schema 3.4. I built RPM packages for myself but thought about submitting these to Fedora. Therefore I have an undefined set of applications possible using zope.interface 3.0 (and relying on this version). Even if my custom application has a very good unit test coverage, this does not help the Fedora Project. On the other hand if there was a commitment to a stable (downwards compatible) API in 3.x, I think it would be much easier to get my RPMs into Fedora. AFAIK there is a commitment to backwards-compatible APIs in the 3.x series, with a time limit: APIs deprecated in version 3.x may be removed in version 3.(x+2). On the other hand, bugs happen, and sometimes people mistake internal implementation details for APIs. There's no substitute for actual testing. The safe way is to use a sandbox full of Zope 3 packages known to work together. There are multiple ways of getting one: svn checkout, tarball install, virtualenv, zc.buildout. Marius Gedminas -- Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM! -- Bill Gates, 1981 Windows 95 needs at least 8 MB RAM. -- Bill Gates, 1996 Nobody will ever need Windows 95. -- logical conclusion signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Looking up IPageTemplate with z3c.form
Recently I needed to optimize an application leveraging z3c.form. One of the speedups involved replacing page template rendering with pure python rendering. I found that doing this was highly iffy (I don't like registering adapters implementing IPageTemplate that clearly don't). To try and fix matters I've written a small proposal about changes to zope.pagetemplate and z3c.form to fix matters: http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/PageTemplateLookup -- Brian Sutherland ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
