Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-11 Thread Chris Withers
Marius Gedminas wrote:
 That is a curious observation.  I find it much easier to understand what
 virtualenv does and how it does it: the underlying model is simpler. 

How do I go from a checkout to a working system in virtualenv?
How do I lock down to particular versions with virtualenv?
Maybe that's the missing link for me... can you help me?

 Actually, now that I think about it more, a buildout would have one
 advantage over virtualenv: with a fixed versions.cfg your Zope 2
 installs won't start failing when somebody uploads a
 new-improved-and-incompatible version of zope.component into PyPI.

Right. This is a pretty crucial thing when it comes to Zope 2 and it's 
veritable constellation of eggs...

 Yes, I'm much more for the latter, but when I tried to make that the 
 only way, someone whined, so I tried to stay neutral...
 
 There will always be people who whine :(

Yes, but Yuppie whines even louder than I do...

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing  Python Consulting
 - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-11 Thread Chris Withers
yuppie wrote:
 Hi Chris!
 
 
 Chris Withers wrote:
 yuppie wrote:
 I consider the self-contained scenario still as experimental.
 You might, I don't. I've deployed this happily in production with a few
 customer now.

 Just because you don't happen to like it yourself, please don't belittle
 it...
 
 I didn't mean to belittle it. 'experimental' is nothing negative. I'm 
 happy people like you are working on and with this approach.

There's no working on, it's done, dusted and in production...

 But IMHO some details like the role of the annotated config file or if a 
 paster template would make things easier are not yet fleshed out enough 
 to make it *the* recommended scenario.

Bull. It's fine as it is, this 'death by feature request' is rediculous...

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing  Python Consulting
 - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-11 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote:
 I recommend virtualenv to anybody who just wants to install and run the
 Zope2 appserver, without needing to drink a lot of kool-aid:

How do you get them using the set of eggs specified in the appropriate 
versions.cfg using this recommendation?

 Activate is a completely unnecessary attractive nuisacne:  I *never* use
 it, and I routinely see people who *do* use it end up running from
 different environments than the ones they think they are running.

Right, so how do I avoid it? Is that in your new Zope 2 docs?

 The self-contained mode is likely *perfect* for developers who produce a
 highly-customized bundle o Zope, 3rd party software, and custom code.
 It just isn't right as the first choice for somebody installing Zope
 for the first time.

I fail to see why not. It's a simple 2 step recipe for them:

- checkout
- run buildout

I was even going to wrap this up into a zope2instance.py script, but I 
ran out of time...

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing  Python Consulting
 - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-11 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote:
 I recommend virtualenv to anybody who just wants to install and run the
 Zope2 appserver, without needing to drink a lot of kool-aid:
 How do you get them using the set of eggs specified in the appropriate 
 versions.cfg using this recommendation?
 
 You install from the index built from that same set of known good versions:
 
   $ /path/to/virtualenv --no-site-packages /tmp/z2123
   $ /tmp/z2123/bin/easy_install \
 -i http://download.zope.org/Zope2/index/2.12.3/  Zope2
   $ /tmp/z2123/bin/mkzopeinstance -d /tmp/instance -u admin:123
   $ /tmp/instance/bin/zopectl fg

Right, and how how do I get my own packages into the mix, with specific, 
locked versions, in an easily reproducible fashion?

 The self-contained mode is likely *perfect* for developers who produce a
 highly-customized bundle o Zope, 3rd party software, and custom code.
 It just isn't right as the first choice for somebody installing Zope
 for the first time.
 I fail to see why not. It's a simple 2 step recipe for them:

 - checkout
 - run buildout
 
 Checkiog Zope out from SVN is not part of an appropriate installation
 model for folks who are not interested in hackin on Zope itself.

Meh, by checkout, I really meant write a buildout.cfg and put it in en 
empty directory with a copy of bootstrap.py. There's no need to check 
anything of svn, the eggs on PyPI are just fine...

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing  Python Consulting
 - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-06 Thread Charlie Clark
Am 03.03.2010, 21:27 Uhr, schrieb Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:

 I recommend virtualenv to anybody who just wants to install and run the
 Zope2 appserver, without needing to drink a lot of kool-aid:  just
 install it from PyPI, run 'mkzopeinstance', and you're done.  Note that
 I specifically remomve the non-virtualenv easy_install docs:  I don't
 want us *ever* to encourage the use of easy_install outside a virtualenv.

Thanks for the clarification.

 I thought zc.buildout is preferred by most people in the Zope community.
 buildout works for *developers*:  it is completely strange for people
 who just want to install and run Zope.  Mixing the buildout version of
 the installation in with the non-buildout version was a disaster, from a
 readability standpoint.

I'm not sure if take up outside the Zope community is that important. I've  
not come across virtualenv in a non-Zope context but then I don't spend a  
lot of time trying out all the cool software out there. What is  
important is that people can get up and running easily and don't f*ck  
their systems with injudicious use of setuptools magic.

The important thing, as I see it, is:
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.

In my view neither virtualenv nor buildout are quite there. If someone can  
explain to me how to use virtualenv in a way that makes it easy to deploy  
what I've developed on another environment then I'd be happy to go that  
way.

 virtualenv is also puzzling if you are not familiar with it. Using
 activate and deactivate or the right paths isn't much easier to learn
 than using zc.buildout.

 The environment itself is much closer to what people expect:  libraries
 installed under 'lib/pythonX.Y', scripts in 'bin', headers in 'include',
 no funky 'parts' or 'eggs' directories, no idea that config files might
 get blown away just because you update software.  I know that some of
 that is due to popular recipes, but that argument is specious:
 buildout's value proposition derives in part from the network effect of
 having those recipes available and widely used.

The layout of a buildout project is indeed somewhat confusing. But the  
config file makes it much easier to replicate what you're doing elsewhere  
and I think most Zope users will be developing something locally to run  
elsewhere, in which case it should be made as easy as possible to  
replicate the experience. The only install  run users I can think of  
would be Plonies and they have their unified installers anyway.

 Activate is a completely unnecessary attractive nuisacne:  I *never* use
 it, and I routinely see people who *do* use it end up running from
 different environments than the ones they think they are running.

+10
I thought I'd been dumped into a new shell / interactive Python the first  
time I saw it!

 - - We have two alternate zc.buildout scenarios (install Zope + run
mkzopeinstance vs. self-contained environment).  The first has no
real advantage over the virtualenv one, except being able to
run buildout to update the software (heaven help you if you forget
to configure the index properly!).  The second leaves you without
the annotated config file, a *major* faux pas.

 I consider the self-contained scenario still as experimental. Following
 the instructions requires much more typing than the other scenarios. But
 I'm optimistic it can and will be improved.
 The self-contained mode is likely *perfect* for developers who produce a
 highly-customized bundle o Zope, 3rd party software, and custom code.
 It just isn't right as the first choice for somebody installing Zope
 for the first time.

Who is likely to be installing Zope for the first time? Much as I love  
Zope, we have to acknowledge that as things stand Zope is not attractive  
for newbies. But this is not just about getting up and running.

Charlie
-- 
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting  Research
German Office
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-04 Thread yuppie
Hi Tres!


Tres Seaver wrote:
 I recommend virtualenv to anybody who just wants to install and run the
 Zope2 appserver, without needing to drink a lot of kool-aid:  just
 install it from PyPI, run 'mkzopeinstance', and you're done.

Who are these people? Why do they want to install and run Zope2? Is 
Zope2 in any way useful for non-developers? Is pure TTW development the 
best way to get started? Or do you recommend virtualenv as well for 
small file-system based projects?


Cheers,

Yuppie
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-04 Thread Marius Gedminas
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 06:12:30PM +, Chris Withers wrote:
 Tres Seaver wrote:
  - - The docs are intended primarily for folks who want to install and
run Zope, rather than hack on it.
 
 Says who? The last comment I had on those docs was from Marius when he 
 had to go back to a Zope 2 project and wanted to make it buildout based.

I wanted to upgrade Zope 2 on a local non-profit's server.  I found the
INSTALL document.  It gave me many options, which was confusing.  I
picked the buildout option since I thought it was the one blessed by the
Zope community.  I went through some paint getting it to work, and I
consider myself to be pretty familiar with buildout.

In retrospect I think I should've used virtualenv + mkzopeinstance.

I'm +10 for having a single recommended install option documented in
INSTALL.txt.  Let the other options be relegated to appendices in a
separate file, for people who think they want buildout/rpm/whatever.

I don't much care if that option is buildout or virtualenv or anything
else, as long as it is reasonably simple and works well for most users.
Currently I'm feeling +0.9 towards virtualenv over buildout, but this
feeling slowly oscillates over time.  A while ago I preferred buildout
over virtualenv; now I just need to experience a certain number of
virtualenv bugs and issues to swing me back.  ;-)

  - - zc.buildout is *super* heavyweight compared to virtualenv
 
 A point of view, I don't happeen to agree, especially for the simple 
 case of an instance... virtualenv doesn't fit my brain, buildout does. 

That is a curious observation.  I find it much easier to understand what
virtualenv does and how it does it: the underlying model is simpler.  Of
course it has fewer features than buildout, which is why I use buildout
for *development*, but I've seen the cost of those features in increased
complexity and difficulty of debugging when something goes wrong.

Actually, now that I think about it more, a buildout would have one
advantage over virtualenv: with a fixed versions.cfg your Zope 2
installs won't start failing when somebody uploads a
new-improved-and-incompatible version of zope.component into PyPI.

  - - We have two alternate zc.buildout scenarios (install Zope + run
mkzopeinstance vs. self-contained environment).
 
 Yes, I'm much more for the latter, but when I tried to make that the 
 only way, someone whined, so I tried to stay neutral...

There will always be people who whine :(

Marius Gedminas
-- 
http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3 consulting and development


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-03 Thread yuppie
Hi Tres!


Tres Seaver wrote:
 Chris Withers wrote:
 By all means, document virtualenv as an option, but blessing it as the
 one true way is a bit much...

I'm also surprised that you propose to make this *the* recommended way.

 Here's my rationale:

 - - The docs are intended primarily for folks who want to install and
run Zope, rather than hack on it.

So you recommend virtualenv for administrators and buildout for 
developers? Or where do you draw the line? And when do you recommend to 
switch from one setup to the other? Or do you always recommend virtualenv?

I thought zc.buildout is preferred by most people in the Zope community.

 - - zc.buildout is *super* heavyweight compared to virtualenv

 - - zc.buildout creates an environment which is puzzling as hell for
anybody who hasn't already drunk the koolaid ('parts'?  'eggs'?
WTF?)

virtualenv is also puzzling if you are not familiar with it. Using 
activate and deactivate or the right paths isn't much easier to learn 
than using zc.buildout.

 - - virtualenv, or something damn near it, is likely to land in Python
itself.

 - - Nearly anybody else in the Python world is more likely to be
familiar with the virtualenv stuff than with buildout.

But not everybody in the Python world is familiar with virtualenv. Why 
should we encourage people to make themselves familiar with virtualenv 
instead of zc.buildout?

 - - We have two alternate zc.buildout scenarios (install Zope + run
mkzopeinstance vs. self-contained environment).  The first has no
real advantage over the virtualenv one, except being able to
run buildout to update the software (heaven help you if you forget
to configure the index properly!).  The second leaves you without
the annotated config file, a *major* faux pas.

I consider the self-contained scenario still as experimental. Following 
the instructions requires much more typing than the other scenarios. But 
I'm optimistic it can and will be improved.


Cheers,

Yuppie

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-03 Thread Chris Withers
yuppie wrote:
 I consider the self-contained scenario still as experimental.

You might, I don't. I've deployed this happily in production with a few 
customer now.

Just because you don't happen to like it yourself, please don't belittle 
it...

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing  Python Consulting
 - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-03 Thread yuppie
Hi Chris!


Chris Withers wrote:
 yuppie wrote:
 I consider the self-contained scenario still as experimental.

 You might, I don't. I've deployed this happily in production with a few
 customer now.

 Just because you don't happen to like it yourself, please don't belittle
 it...

I didn't mean to belittle it. 'experimental' is nothing negative. I'm 
happy people like you are working on and with this approach.

But IMHO some details like the role of the annotated config file or if a 
paster template would make things easier are not yet fleshed out enough 
to make it *the* recommended scenario.


Cheers,

Yuppie
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-03 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

yuppie wrote:

 Tres Seaver wrote:
 Chris Withers wrote:
 By all means, document virtualenv as an option, but blessing it as the
 one true way is a bit much...
 
 I'm also surprised that you propose to make this *the* recommended way.
 
 Here's my rationale:

 - - The docs are intended primarily for folks who want to install and
run Zope, rather than hack on it.
 
 So you recommend virtualenv for administrators and buildout for 
 developers? Or where do you draw the line? And when do you recommend to 
 switch from one setup to the other? Or do you always recommend virtualenv?

I recommend virtualenv to anybody who just wants to install and run the
Zope2 appserver, without needing to drink a lot of kool-aid:  just
install it from PyPI, run 'mkzopeinstance', and you're done.  Note that
I specifically remomve the non-virtualenv easy_install docs:  I don't
want us *ever* to encourage the use of easy_install outside a virtualenv.

 I thought zc.buildout is preferred by most people in the Zope community.

buildout works for *developers*:  it is completely strange for people
who just want to install and run Zope.  Mixing the buildout version of
the installation in with the non-buildout version was a disaster, from a
readability standpoint.


 - - zc.buildout is *super* heavyweight compared to virtualenv

 - - zc.buildout creates an environment which is puzzling as hell for
anybody who hasn't already drunk the koolaid ('parts'?  'eggs'?
WTF?)
 
 virtualenv is also puzzling if you are not familiar with it. Using 
 activate and deactivate or the right paths isn't much easier to learn 
 than using zc.buildout.

The environment itself is much closer to what people expect:  libraries
installed under 'lib/pythonX.Y', scripts in 'bin', headers in 'include',
no funky 'parts' or 'eggs' directories, no idea that config files might
get blown away just because you update software.  I know that some of
that is due to popular recipes, but that argument is specious:
buildout's value proposition derives in part from the network effect of
having those recipes available and widely used.

Activate is a completely unnecessary attractive nuisacne:  I *never* use
it, and I routinely see people who *do* use it end up running from
different environments than the ones they think they are running.

 - - virtualenv, or something damn near it, is likely to land in Python
itself.

 - - Nearly anybody else in the Python world is more likely to be
familiar with the virtualenv stuff than with buildout.
 
 But not everybody in the Python world is familiar with virtualenv. Why 
 should we encourage people to make themselves familiar with virtualenv 
 instead of zc.buildout?

I would bet that, outside the Zope community, virtualenv's mindshare is
ten times that of buildout.  Adding it to the stdlib was actually a
topic on the agenda of the pre-PyCon language summit, for instance.

 - - We have two alternate zc.buildout scenarios (install Zope + run
mkzopeinstance vs. self-contained environment).  The first has no
real advantage over the virtualenv one, except being able to
run buildout to update the software (heaven help you if you forget
to configure the index properly!).  The second leaves you without
the annotated config file, a *major* faux pas.
 
 I consider the self-contained scenario still as experimental. Following 
 the instructions requires much more typing than the other scenarios. But 
 I'm optimistic it can and will be improved.

The self-contained mode is likely *perfect* for developers who produce a
highly-customized bundle o Zope, 3rd party software, and custom code.
It just isn't right as the first choice for somebody installing Zope
for the first time.


Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver  +1 540-429-0999  tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software   Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkuOxiAACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4UhwCgyb5BGFZD1Lz/9rYLng10ekx8
sk4An2pmynQ8PUZagq1CAbd6+tasXyIj
=B00w
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-03 Thread Christian Theune
On 03/03/2010 09:27 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:

 The self-contained mode is likely *perfect* for developers who produce a
 highly-customized bundle o Zope, 3rd party software, and custom code.
 It just isn't right as the first choice for somebody installing Zope
 for the first time.

I never considered anybody except developers doing straight
installations of Zope itself. I usually expect developers/admins/devops
to deploy an actual application/project which usually has some more
expectations on environment and installed components than just a Zope
server.

In that case I expect a project description which will contain
complete installation instructions readable by man and machine and can
be used by both developers and admins.

The cool-aid part is a bit troublesome to me in the sense that a plain
Zope server won't stay plain for long. Using lots of additional packages
without a tool that allows you to keep track of what you installed and
configured (so that this information can go to version control) will put
people in a horrible place quickly. I have the feeling that experience
will then fall back to Zope again because people say you can't manage
that complexity whereas we have a tool for that but we decided it not
to be built into Zope itself.

Christian

-- 
Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh  co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-02 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote:
  Installing Zope
 -===
 +---
  
 -Unless using buildout to build a zope instance as described
 -:ref:`below buildout-instances`, you will need to install Zope
 -separately. If you want to create a buildout-based Zope instance,
 -please skip directly to that section.
 +The recommended way to install Zope is within a virtualized Python 
 environment
 +using ``virtualenv`` as follows::

Really? I wouldn't recommend virtualenv...
Myself, I find the buildout instance the easiest and lightest weight 
method...

By all means, document virtualenv as an option, but blessing it as the 
one true way is a bit much...

cheers,

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing  Python Consulting
 - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-02 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Chris Withers wrote:
 Tres Seaver wrote:
  Installing Zope
 -===
 +---
  
 -Unless using buildout to build a zope instance as described
 -:ref:`below buildout-instances`, you will need to install Zope
 -separately. If you want to create a buildout-based Zope instance,
 -please skip directly to that section.
 +The recommended way to install Zope is within a virtualized Python 
 environment
 +using ``virtualenv`` as follows::
 
 Really? I wouldn't recommend virtualenv...
 Myself, I find the buildout instance the easiest and lightest weight 
 method...
 
 By all means, document virtualenv as an option, but blessing it as the 
 one true way is a bit much...

Here's my rationale:

- - The docs are intended primarily for folks who want to install and
  run Zope, rather than hack on it.

- - zc.buildout is *super* heavyweight compared to virtualenv

- - zc.buildout creates an environment which is puzzling as hell for
  anybody who hasn't already drunk the koolaid ('parts'?  'eggs'?
  WTF?)

- - virtualenv, or something damn near it, is likely to land in Python
  itself.

- - Nearly anybody else in the Python world is more likely to be
  familiar with the virtualenv stuff than with buildout.

- - We have two alternate zc.buildout scenarios (install Zope + run
  mkzopeinstance vs. self-contained environment).  The first has no
  real advantage over the virtualenv one, except being able to
  run buildout to update the software (heaven help you if you forget
  to configure the index properly!).  The second leaves you without
  the annotated config file, a *major* faux pas.

I plan to merge that branch to the 2.12 branch and the trunk, assuming
no further objections.


Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver  +1 540-429-0999  tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software   Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkuNTyUACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7i/wCfeWwoIe1pqmjAgtOlKbb7km7O
xyUAnjgyYNcaz3qIIMB9ZKMn1F+NBcha
=CRlO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

2010-03-02 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote:
 - - The docs are intended primarily for folks who want to install and
   run Zope, rather than hack on it.

Says who? The last comment I had on those docs was from Marius when he 
had to go back to a Zope 2 project and wanted to make it buildout based.
I've also used those docs myself when doing upgrades to Zope 2.12 (one 
of the reasons I did all the work on them!)

 - - zc.buildout is *super* heavyweight compared to virtualenv

A point of view, I don't happeen to agree, especially for the simple 
case of an instance... virtualenv doesn't fit my brain, buildout does. 
I'd hazard a guess that people still interested in Zope 2 might fall 
into that category too...

 - - zc.buildout creates an environment which is puzzling as hell for
   anybody who hasn't already drunk the koolaid ('parts'?  'eggs'?
   WTF?)

...or not.

bin/zopectl

...which is what you've done in Zope instances for years now...

having to guess where to find zopectl in a virtual env is not something 
that comes naturally to all of us...

 - - virtualenv, or something damn near it, is likely to land in Python
   itself.

I don't think that discussion is anywhere near done yet ;-)

 - - Nearly anybody else in the Python world is more likely to be
   familiar with the virtualenv stuff than with buildout.

Not 100% on that either, buildout has been active service in the Django 
community, and for all I know, elsewhere too..

 - - We have two alternate zc.buildout scenarios (install Zope + run
   mkzopeinstance vs. self-contained environment).

Yes, I'm much more for the latter, but when I tried to make that the 
only way, someone whined, so I tried to stay neutral...

   run buildout to update the software (heaven help you if you forget
   to configure the index properly!).

How is that any different from the virtual env route?!

  The second leaves you without
   the annotated config file, a *major* faux pas.

If someone wants to knock up a paster template, go right ahead. Myself, 
I'm not that fussed. I always trim away all the default values and 
commentary from my zope.conf anyway, since I know where to find the 
skeleton (wouldn't it be great if that figured in the Zope 2 docs where 
it belongs, since it really is documentation) and I like short config 
files that say what *is* actually configured rather than what *might* be 
a default value...

 I plan to merge that branch to the 2.12 branch and the trunk, assuming
 no further objections.

Well, maybe wait to see what other people think. The above is obviously 
my personal view, but I'd be surprised if I was the only person who had 
that view...

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing  Python Consulting
 - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )