Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts.
Yes, this is understood.
I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement.
Perhaps more generally, how important is it that the repository reflects
the
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'll note that, as a developer, I have never done this and probably
never would want to do this.
How do you test 'mkzopeinstance' then? Build a release first? That's
rather cumbersome. Anyway, small point.
The only use case for this is a deployer of Zope that wants to
Andreas Jung wrote:
Who has the knowledge and time to fix this?
I think we need to have some philosophical agreement on what is going to
be done before we figure out who has time to fix this. I think the
issue is a bit deeper than just a bug people want fix, even though it
presents itself
r
--On 22. Dezember 2005 12:06:09 +0100 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Who has the knowledge and time to fix this?
I think we need to have some philosophical agreement on what is going to
be done before we figure out who has time to fix this. I think the
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:37:22AM +0100, Dario Lopez-K?sten wrote:
+1 on this.
It is important for us in the forced to be both developer and deployer
by evil sysadmins camp.
I'm one of those guys too.
I'm sure I can learn to live with the 2.9 release layout but right now
it's just
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts.
Yes, this is understood.
I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement.
Perhaps more generally, how important is it that the
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'll note that, as a developer, I have never done this and probably
never would want to do this.
How do you test 'mkzopeinstance' then? Build a release first? That's
rather cumbersome. Anyway, small point.
In Zope3, I use bin/mkzopeinstance.
In
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Who has the knowledge and time to fix this?
I think we need to have some philosophical agreement on what is going to
be done before we figure out who has time to fix this. I think the
issue is a bit deeper than just a bug people want fix, even
Andreas Jung wrote:
...
I am not against zpkg but I have really no idea how it works, what is
does for me and how it causes the particular trouble in this case..at
the moment zpkg is just a magic black box with some esoteric
functionalityto make it short: I need to learn what zpkg is and
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:37:22AM +0100, Dario Lopez-K?sten wrote:
+1 on this.
It is important for us in the forced to be both developer and deployer
by evil sysadmins camp.
I'm one of those guys too.
I'm sure I can learn to live with the 2.9 release layout but right
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:51:40PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
The tar ball looks the same (wrt configure/make/make install).
It's the checkout that has changed.
Ah, sorry, I was talking about directory layout, and that's
a different question (and not really a big deal).
Didn't mean to go off on a
Tim Peters wrote:
I'm sure Paul meant that the content of the tarball _looks_ very
different now. Change is always disconcerting. I vividly recall that
when ZODB switched to zpkgtools-based releases, we had messages from
people staring at the tarball wondering where the ZODB code was --
Jim Fulton wrote:
My suggestion is to have different README and INSTALL files for the
checkout that tell people what they can do and how to do it and to
change the install target to simply tell people that install isn't
currently supported in a checkout and to read the appropriate text
files.
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005, at 08:51, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
On 18. Dez 2005, at 17:58, Tim Peters wrote:
Nobody should be installing from a checkout to begin with, right?
Ok, so that's probably where we disagree then ;-)
I almost exclusively work with checkouts, and I would
Andreas Jung wrote:
I agree. I am also not happy with that. Unfortunately I have currently
no clue how to solve this issue (no idea about zpkg). WHat you can do is
the following:
- copy the checkout to the location where your software home should be
- run configure; make inplace; make
Jeff Kowalczyk wrote:
I didn't receive any feedback on zope-general, but it could just be a
problem with my environment that fails silently. Can anyone confirm that
this isn't pilot error before I file a bug? Thanks.
From the thread, it's not a pilot error, so could you please file a bug
if
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005, at 08:51, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
On 18. Dez 2005, at 17:58, Tim Peters wrote:
Nobody should be installing from a checkout to begin with, right?
Ok, so that's probably where we disagree then ;-)
I almost exclusively work with
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 13:47 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts.
I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement.
If it is, then we should make it work. Question is, is it worth
delaying the release? I don't know.
I
Andrew Sawyers wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 13:47 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts.
I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement.
If it is, then we should make it work. Question is, is it worth
delaying the
On 21 Dec 2005, at 18:47, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts.
I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement.
If it is, then we should make it work. Question is, is it worth
delaying the release? I don't know.
IMHO it is an
--On 21. Dezember 2005 19:35:35 + Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I really think there is not a single good reason for having a different
experience for checkouts vs tarballs. It would even lead to major
annoyance where I work right now, just to give a real life example. For
This has been my approach also. Not surprisingly, many of us worked on
these processes together and have 'sanitized them' over time. :) There
has always been 'another side' who either hasn't liked this procedure or
the 'make' voodoo and have come up with their own, or just haven't had
to do
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
IMHO it is an important requirement. We're inviting a hailstorm of
questions and annoyed users by breaking this well-known routine for
checkouts.
I really think there is not a single good reason for having a different
experience for checkouts vs tarballs. It would
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 21 Dec 2005, at 18:47, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts.
I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement.
If it is, then we should make it work. Question is, is it worth
delaying the release? I
On 18. Dez 2005, at 17:58, Tim Peters wrote:
Nobody should be installing from a checkout to begin with, right?
Ok, so that's probably where we disagree then ;-)
I almost exclusively work with checkouts, and I would think many
developers (as opposed to users) do. Is there really no way to
On 20 Dec 2005, at 08:51, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
On 18. Dez 2005, at 17:58, Tim Peters wrote:
Nobody should be installing from a checkout to begin with, right?
Ok, so that's probably where we disagree then ;-)
I almost exclusively work with checkouts, and I would think many
developers
--On 20. Dezember 2005 09:59:36 + Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I strongly disagree as well. I believe it is normal practice to grab a
tag or branch tip from subversion and install that. Why would I ever
grab some tarball when I'm at the command line already and use svn for
make install does currently not work on 2.9 branch and trunk. I am
told that this is because zpkg cannot do it. I am also told that
the tarball would support make install, just not the checkout. I
never use tarballs, so I don't know for sure.
I'd very much like to see the canonical
--On 18. Dezember 2005 10:40:32 +0100 Stefan H. Holek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
make install does currently not work on 2.9 branch and trunk. I am
told that this is because zpkg cannot do it. I am also told that the
tarball would support make install, just not the checkout. I never use
On 18 Dec 2005, at 09:40, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
make install does currently not work on 2.9 branch and trunk. I
am told that this is because zpkg cannot do it. I am also told
that the tarball would support make install, just not the checkout.
I never use tarballs, so I don't know for
[Stefan H. Holek]
make install does currently not work on 2.9 branch and trunk. I am
told that this is because zpkg cannot do it. I am also told that
the tarball would support make install, just not the checkout. I
never use tarballs, so I don't know for sure.
There's no longer any necessary
I didn't receive any feedback on zope-general, but it could just be a
problem with my environment that fails silently. Can anyone confirm that
this isn't pilot error before I file a bug? Thanks.
---
I'm having some trouble with the 'make install' stage of Zope-2.9 svn.
Using python-2.4.2 on
32 matches
Mail list logo
