Hi,
While porting one ZTK app to Python 3 I discovered the following
problems with zope.security:
1) There was a package zope.app.security, which, along with zope.app
baggage provided security declarations for BTrees and PersistentDict,
PersistentList. They were in a separate file, _protections.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/08/2013 02:18 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 03:42:06 PM Tres Seaver wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 02/14/2013 03:15 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> The work to create a compatible pure-P
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 03:42:06 PM Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/14/2013 03:15 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> > The work to create a compatible pure-Python proxy is partly done (I
> > added tests for all the features of the C version I could disco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/14/2013 03:15 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> The work to create a compatible pure-Python proxy is partly done (I
> added tests for all the features of the C version I could discover).
> The version I have in my sandbox doesn't pass all those tests, so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/13/2013 05:02 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> On 02/13/2013 11:04 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> On 02/12/2013 10:47 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
>
>>> I saw you finished test coverage tonight for zope.security. What
>>> is your timeline to do the port to Pyt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/13/2013 11:04 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> On 02/12/2013 10:47 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
>
>> I saw you finished test coverage tonight for zope.security. What is
>> your timeline to do the port to Python 3? Our efforts are blocked
>> until we get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/12/2013 10:47 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
> I saw you finished test coverage tonight for zope.security. What is
> your timeline to do the port to Python 3? Our efforts are blocked
> until we get zope.security going. We would be willing to take a
> On 02/11/2013 03:36 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
> > Hi Tres (and everyone else reading along),
> >
> > as you are probably aware, zope.security is a package that blocks a
> > lot of other packages from being ported. I just checked out the
> > coverage on Github and it looks like you are making go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/11/2013 09:16 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 06:34:52 PM Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> I propose to split zope.security.untrustedpython into a separate
>>> package called zope.untrustedpython, so that a port of
>>> zope.secur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/11/2013 03:36 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
> Hi Tres (and everyone else reading along),
>
> as you are probably aware, zope.security is a package that blocks a
> lot of other packages from being ported. I just checked out the
> coverage on Github
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Stephan Richter
wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 03:37:17 PM Jim Fulton wrote:
>> > It seems to be readonly already, so I cannot remove the files.
>>
>> Sorry. Fixed. Can you try again please?
>
> All done.
Thanks. Back to read only.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
http
On Monday, February 11, 2013 03:37:17 PM Jim Fulton wrote:
> > It seems to be readonly already, so I cannot remove the files.
>
> Sorry. Fixed. Can you try again please?
All done.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Entrepreneur and Software Geek
Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
__
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Stephan Richter
wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 03:19:54 PM Jim Fulton wrote:
>> > 1. Can we delete the contents of zope.security on svn.zope.org?
>>
>> Please remove the contents of trunk and add a MOVED_TO_GITHUB file in
>> trunk and in the project root wit
On Monday, February 11, 2013 03:19:54 PM Jim Fulton wrote:
> > 1. Can we delete the contents of zope.security on svn.zope.org?
>
> Please remove the contents of trunk and add a MOVED_TO_GITHUB file in
> trunk and in the project root with the git repo url.
>
> When that's done, I'll make the proje
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Stephan Richter
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I was just about to start porting zope.security using the SVN version, when I
> noticed it is already on Github and Tres has even worked on it today. So 2
> things:
>
> 1. Can we delete the contents of zope.security on svn.
Hi everyone,
I was just about to start porting zope.security using the SVN version, when I
noticed it is already on Github and Tres has even worked on it today. So 2
things:
1. Can we delete the contents of zope.security on svn.zope.org?
2. Can we enable checkin messages for all moved projects
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Gediminas Paulauskas wrote:
> So I removed the (incorrect) issubclass call, and the rest of the test
> passes, showing that ABC checker works correctly. Even if it would be
> good that issubclass worked, I think that mixing ABCs and Zope
> interfaces is very unlike
2010/10/27 Tres Seaver :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/27/2010 07:58 AM, Zope Tests Summarizer wrote:
...
>> Subject: FAILED : Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.7 slave-ubuntu64
>> From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com
>> Date: Wed Oct 27 04:49:22 EDT 2010
>> URL: http:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Happy New Year to everybody,
>
> I'm working to isolate a core set of ZTK packages which are independent
> from Zope and reusable outside the Zope community. One of them is
> zope.security, which can be used (and it is usef
* 2010-01-05 08:26, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> While doing it, I'm trying to remove dependencies which are zope-specific,
> to minimize the overhead for developers who are using the whole zope stack
> (like me :)).
Ehm, I meant who are NOT using the whole zope stack.
Fabio
__
Happy New Year to everybody,
I'm working to isolate a core set of ZTK packages which are independent
from Zope and reusable outside the Zope community. One of them is
zope.security, which can be used (and it is useful, indeed) with non-zope
frameworks too.
While doing it, I'm trying to remove dep
On Thursday 08 October 2009, John Murphy wrote:
> We noticed that the KGS 3.4.0b2 uses zope.security 3.4.0 and KGS
> 3.5dev uses zope.security 3.6.0, both of which are vulnerable to this
> bug. It would be great if the fixed version was incorporated into the
> KGS soon, as segfaults during garbage
> I think you will need to update your own application specific version
> set. The Zope 3 KGS is currently unmaintained. The future of the Zope
> 3 project is currently unknown. The last release has been eight months
> ago and there is currently no active maintenance going on.
My bad, I should've
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, John Murphy wrote:
> We recently were bit by a segfault bug in zope.security
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope3/+bug/181833) when migrating an
> application from Python 2.4 to 2.6. The newest zope.security (3.7.1,
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zope.security/3.7.1#
We recently were bit by a segfault bug in zope.security
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope3/+bug/181833) when migrating an
application from Python 2.4 to 2.6. The newest zope.security (3.7.1,
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zope.security/3.7.1#id1) has a fix for the
bug.
We noticed that the KGS 3.4.0b2
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-2-6 12:31 +:
> ...
>> I would find is very unintuitive when configuration were centralized
>> (in subpackages of "zope.configuration") rather than modular.
>>
>> Configuration belongs to the application or framework component
>> that depends on this configur
2009/2/6 Chris Withers :
> Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Chris Withers wrote at 2009-1-30 18:50 +:
>>> Brian Sutherland wrote:
> zope.configuration.x
> zope.configuration.y
Please don't, having namespace packages that contain files (as
zope.configuration already does) breaks setupto
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote at 2009-1-30 18:50 +:
>> Brian Sutherland wrote:
zope.configuration.x
zope.configuration.y
>>> Please don't, having namespace packages that contain files (as
>>> zope.configuration already does) breaks setuptools.
>> Then setuptools needs fix
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 06:21:27AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Brian Sutherland wrote:
>>
>> Please don't, having namespace packages that contain files (as
>> zope.configuration already does) breaks setuptools.
>
>
> zope.configuration isn't a namespace package. It is
On Jan 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Brian Sutherland wrote:
>
> Please don't, having namespace packages that contain files (as
> zope.configuration already does) breaks setuptools.
zope.configuration isn't a namespace package. It is simply a package
with subpackages.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corpora
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-1-30 18:50 +:
>Brian Sutherland wrote:
>>> zope.configuration.x
>>> zope.configuration.y
>>
>> Please don't, having namespace packages that contain files (as
>> zope.configuration already does) breaks setuptools.
>
>Then setuptools needs fixing.
But not for this pu
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Benji York wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Martijn Faassen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No, not there either, as zope.configuration doesn't define *any*
>>> directives except the basic ones like 'include' and 'configure'. If you
>>> would
Benji York wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>
>> No, not there either, as zope.configuration doesn't define *any*
>> directives except the basic ones like 'include' and 'configure'. If you
>> would implement zope 3's directives in zope.configuration it'd start
>
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> No, not there either, as zope.configuration doesn't define *any*
> directives except the basic ones like 'include' and 'configure'. If you
> would implement zope 3's directives in zope.configuration it'd start
> pulling in dependencies li
Brian Sutherland wrote:
>> zope.configuration.x
>> zope.configuration.y
>
> Please don't, having namespace packages that contain files (as
> zope.configuration already does) breaks setuptools.
Then setuptools needs fixing.
There's no reason why zope.configuration and zope.configuration.x
should
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 05:32:33PM +, Chris Withers wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> >>> This makes a lot more sense to me than having the ZCML support in
> >>> either zope.component or zope.security.
> >> Indeed, surely all zcml stuff belongs in zope.configuration anyway?
> >
> > No, not the
On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
>> Fred Drake wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Martijn Faassen >> > wrote:
I believe it'd be nicer to extract any ZCML related stuff from
zope.component at some point and put it into zope.componentzcm
On Jan 30, 2009, at 6:59 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Fred Drake wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Martijn Faassen > > wrote:
>>> I believe it'd be nicer to extract any ZCML related stuff from
>>> zope.component at some point and put it into zope.componentzcml or
>>> something like that. W
Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> This makes a lot more sense to me than having the ZCML support in
>>> either zope.component or zope.security.
>> Indeed, surely all zcml stuff belongs in zope.configuration anyway?
>
> No, not there either, as zope.configuration doesn't define *any*
> directives except
Chris Withers wrote:
> Fred Drake wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Martijn Faassen
>> wrote:
>>> I believe it'd be nicer to extract any ZCML related stuff from
>>> zope.component at some point and put it into zope.componentzcml or
>>> something like that. We could then decide to move th
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> I believe it'd be nicer to extract any ZCML related stuff from
>> zope.component at some point and put it into zope.componentzcml or
>> something like that. We could then decide to move the and
>> directives in the
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I believe it'd be nicer to extract any ZCML related stuff from
> zope.component at some point and put it into zope.componentzcml or
> something like that. We could then decide to move the and
> directives in there as well.
+1
This makes
Hey,
Dan Korostelev wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> What about the other use case of , i.e. declaring implemented
>> interfaces, as in
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> +1. That's kinda strange to have it in zope.security.
>
> I think, the better place to move zcml directives is zope.component,
> as it already depend
On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Dan Korostelev wrote:
> I think, the better place to move zcml directives is zope.component,
> as it already depends on zope.security for the zcml support and the
> "class" directive also has component-related "factory" subdirective
> which declared in zope.component.
On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> Sounds good!
>
> What about the other use case of , i.e. declaring implemented
> interfaces, as in
>
>
>
>
I was waiting for that comment. :-) I wanted to write the same this morning,
but then decided that the new solution is bette
2009/1/29 Marius Gedminas :
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 06:42:58PM +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> In the dependency cleanup effort we've got going on at the Grok
>> cavesprint here at my house, we have moved code around some more.
>>
>> zope.security was already defining ZCML direct
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 06:42:58PM +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> In the dependency cleanup effort we've got going on at the Grok
> cavesprint here at my house, we have moved code around some more.
>
> zope.security was already defining ZCML directives so we've moved the
> direct
Hi there,
In the dependency cleanup effort we've got going on at the Grok
cavesprint here at my house, we have moved code around some more.
zope.security was already defining ZCML directives so we've moved the
directive from zope.app.component and and the
directive from zope.app.security into
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Joachim König <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is only required at runtime, so this is not a (circular) build or
> install dependency,
> but as the NetBSD-pkgsrc build infrastructure wants to generate the
> .pyc/.pyo files
> at installation time, I still have a pro
Hello,
while trying to install zope.location (3.4.0) and zope.security (3.5.2)
from source
(in order to create a NetBSD-pkgsrc package) I noticed, that they specify
each other in their install-requires list in setup.py.
Looking at the code, they also import each other:
> zope/location/location
50 matches
Mail list logo