On 17. Nov 2007, at 02:15, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I understand the historical reasons behind these dependencies, but
I genuinely think we should pick a few libraries that are useful
to the outside world (zope.interface, zope.component,
zope.configuration, zope.annotation, zope.event come to
On Nov 16, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
...
In any case, I definitely see a case for both. I can't see a good
reason why we can't have support for simple XML-based component
registration without having to depend on the ZODB and tons of other
Zope eggs.
You're right. We can.
Jim Fulton wrote:
I understand the historical reasons behind these dependencies, but I
genuinely think we should pick a few libraries that are useful to
the outside world (zope.interface, zope.component,
zope.configuration, zope.annotation, zope.event come to mind) and
work to make these
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 16 November 2007, Jim Fulton wrote:
Something is broken here and it needs to be fixed.
Well, the easiest solution would be to remove those misbehaving distributions
from the cheeseshop.
However, I think we kid ourselves if we think that the cheeseshop will
Hi Chris,
Then I tried to easy_install zope.security, but this pulled in most
of Zope, including the ZODB, ZConfig and zdaemon. That's a real
shame - no CA (at least not with ZCML) without having pretty much
all of Zope there. :(
Yup. Inappropriate dependency chain when you use the
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 11:41 AM, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 3:38 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Help appreciated!
Well, I suggest you forget about ZCML and try to use the CA directly
from Python. The Pylons people would probably
Rob Miller wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 11:41 AM, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 3:38 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Help appreciated!
Well, I suggest you forget about ZCML and try to use the CA directly
from Python. The Pylons people
On Monday 20 February 2006 20:09, Andrew Milton wrote:
So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign
over the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation
later), and then check it into the svn respository.
Is this is correct?
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 05:24:08PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
Heads up for the 2.8.0 final release. My plans are to make the final
release on Saturday morning. So any further changes should be done by
tomorrow at the latest.
Cheers,
-aj
Mind if I check in text-only changes to the 2_8
On 6/10/05, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mind if I check in text-only changes to the 2_8 branch?
It's still Friday for Andreas, so this is a good time!
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com
Zope Corporation
___
Zope-Dev
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 07:27:15PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. Juni 2005 12:39:50 -0400 Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/10/05, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mind if I check in text-only changes to the 2_8 branch?
It's still Friday for Andreas, so this is a good
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:21:32PM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
Done. Like I said, just trivial docs typos.
While I'm at it, anybody object to the attached patch to
doc/FAQ.txt ?
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Index: FAQ.txt
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:07:51PM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:21:32PM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
Done. Like I said, just trivial docs typos.
While I'm at it, anybody object to the attached patch to
doc/FAQ.txt ?
(snip)
Holy crap, FAQ.txt is rally crufty.
[Paul Winkler]
Holy crap, FAQ.txt is rally crufty.
It's loaded with pcgi information and other useless crap.
Gimme a minute to come up with a better patch.
I should make a branch for this.
I vote you check in changes instead, until you run out of time. Every
improvement will lessen
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:21:32PM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
Done. Like I said, just trivial docs typos.
Yeah, but improvements are improvements!
On 6/10/05, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I'm at it, anybody object to the attached patch to
doc/FAQ.txt ?
I don't see a need to
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:40:41PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
[Paul Winkler]
Holy crap, FAQ.txt is rally crufty.
It's loaded with pcgi information and other useless crap.
Gimme a minute to come up with a better patch.
I should make a branch for this.
I vote you check in changes
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 04:04:48PM -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:21:32PM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
Done. Like I said, just trivial docs typos.
Yeah, but improvements are improvements!
On 6/10/05, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I'm at it, anybody
[Fred Drake]
I don't see a need to include the disclaimer about Python 2.4; I test
on 2.4, and use Zope 3 trunk with 2.4.1 all the time.
[Paul Winkler]
Maybe you do, but it really is a FAQ, and that's the consensus response
from the chorus every time it comes up on the main zope list, so I
+1 this is a problem.
The question is whether curing it is *more* of a problem.
-Casey
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:00:26 -0400
Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Zope 2 has a package named Zope. Zope 3 has a package named
zope. Starting with Zope 2.8, parts of Zope 3 will
Jim Fulton wrote:
The first question is:
Is it a problem to have two packages with names differing only in case?
I don't see a problem at all; IIRC, we agreed that the backports from
Zope3 would live in a 'src' directory, while Zope 2 stuff continues to
live in 'lib/python'. No case problem
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The first question is:
Is it a problem to have two packages with names differing only in case?
I don't see a problem at all; IIRC, we agreed that the backports from
Zope3 would live in a 'src' directory, while Zope 2 stuff continues to
live
Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I think the breakage, although literally incalculable (as is
every change to Zope 2, given that it has no canonical API), would be
manageable given enough lead time. In fact, if we did change the module
name, we could just leave a bruce package in place
Chris McDonough wrote:
+1
It looks like in the Zope 2 trunk, there are only a very few places that
rely on import Zope or from Zope import.
It looks like it would be possible to change the name of the Zope
package in Zope 2 to zope2 or something without a tremendous amount of
work. And as long
Brian --
Does this mean that Zope 2.6.3 is compatible with Python 2.3.3? I would
be nice to retire 2.1.3.
-dra
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Brian Lloyd wrote:
Zope 2.6.3 Release and Security Update
Zope 2.6.3 contains a number of security related fixes for issues
resolved during a
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 20:31, Dennis Allison wrote:
Does this mean that Zope 2.6.3 is compatible with Python 2.3.3? I would
be nice to retire 2.1.3.
I'm not aware of any Zope Corp internal projects still using Python
2.1.3. I'm not aware of any serious incompatibilities. I suppose the
only
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Martijn Pieters wrote:
Due to the CVS vulnerabilities disclosed today, we have temporarily shut
down anonymous CVS access to cvs.zope.org through pserver. We'll reenable
this when we have upgraded CVS on the server.
People with write access through SSH and the web
Error Report:
On Redhat-Skipjack 7.2.93:
# tar -xvzf Zope-2.4.4-linux2-x86.tgz
# cd Zope-2.4.4-linux2-x86
# bin/python
bin/python: relocation error: bin/python: undefined symbol: atexit
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:00
Subject: [Zope-Coders] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
http://dev.zope.org/Resources/zope_260_plan.html
I wholeheartedly agree that
On Thursday 28 February 2002 3:00 pm, Brian Lloyd wrote:
Paul sent a note to zope-coders some time back fishing for
some feedback regarding planning for a Zope 2.6 (excepted):
I propose that planning for a 2.6 focus on the following thoughts:
I wholeheartedly agree that 2.6 needs to be
Toby Dickenson wrote:
The 2.6 timeframe should allow me to find some time to integrate my Unicode
support (in ZPublisher, ZServer, and DTML), if there is agreement that this
is the right thing to do.
I'd +1 that in a big way :-)
Especially combined with landing all Andreas' cool ZCatalog
- Original Message -
From: Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:00
Subject: [Zope-Coders] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
I wholeheartedly agree that 2.6 needs to be significantly a community
effort.
If I had to make a wild guess, I would say 2.6 might land in the
May-June timeframe.
I would anticipate a drive for finalization in May, with the release
cycle in June.
That's not official, just a good guess based on our historical release
patterns.
On Friday, March 1, 2002, at 06:56 AM,
- New restricted execution architecture
A note about this for those who have run afoul of restrictions on
builtins such as 'list', 'map', and 'range' in Scripts and DTML Python
expressions:
In the new architecture, there are (by default) no attempts to protect
the system against excessive
* Joachim Werner sez:
Ok, let me try to understand this one. I am a bit dumb, sorry...
- You can work with full SSL-encryption, maybe even client certificates.
This is much more secure than TELNET or FTP. (Unfortunately, SSH/SCP,
while being the "better TELNET/FTP" is not always an
Found a bug, I think... when I try to add a property to a
PropertyManager (but not a PropertySheet?) I get:
Error Type: ImportError
Error Value: cannot import name checkValidId
Traceback (innermost last):
File /opt/Zope-2.3.0a1-src/lib/python/ZPublisher/Publish.py,
line 222, in
Found a bug, I think... when I try to add a property to a
PropertyManager (but not a PropertySheet?) I get:
Error Type: ImportError
Error Value: cannot import name checkValidId
Thanks - the fix should be checked in shortly...
Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Engineer
I had a problem like this once, and worked out that it was because the system
time was incorrect in IE somehow. The time that windows was displaying was
correct, but that had been manually changed to take in to account day light
savings which started early in Australia this year due to the
Hi!
My vote is here:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Lloyd wrote:
o retract the 2.1.7 release in favor of getting 2.2 beta 2
out on Monday, which doesn't have the cruft problem of
the 2.1.x branch and contains all fixes to date (and
which will fix SQLMethod problems and
Hi!
My vote is here:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Lloyd wrote:
o retract the 2.1.7 release in favor of getting 2.2 beta 2
out on Monday, which doesn't have the cruft problem of
the 2.1.x branch and contains all fixes to date (and
which will fix SQLMethod problems and support
39 matches
Mail list logo
