Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-17 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Jacob Holm wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: Hey, Stephan Richter wrote: [snip] There is a compromise I am willing to take. If package zope.bar depends on a *new feature* or *feature change* in zope.foo 1.3.x, then it should

Re: [Zope-dev] zopectl does not terminate

2009-03-17 Thread Hedley Roos
My apologies. I sent this to the wrong list. H ___ 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

Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies for ZCML

2009-03-17 Thread Tim Hoffman
Hi I would like to chime in here on the zcml I have managed to get a core stack of zope3 running on gae had to hack a lot of zope.security and zope.proxy to get it there, but it all works quite well I found I had to ignore zope.configuration to get most of the base stack working because the

[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 6 OK

2009-03-17 Thread Zope Tests Summarizer
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Mon Mar 16 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Mar 17 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Mar 16 21:24:04 EDT 2009 URL:

Re: [Zope-dev] zc.relationship - can't pickle module objects

2009-03-17 Thread Gary Poster
On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:55 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Gary Poster wrote: Yes, +1. Thank you. I was about to write to your other message that this was quite possibly the only 3.8 dependency. Cool. Committed. If we do that, then we can let plone.relations depend on zc.relationship 1.1.1

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-17 Thread Martijn Faassen
Wichert Akkerman wrote: [snip] I see no useful different between x.y and x.y.z here. All I want is if someone installs one of our packages that package will work as expected. If a package will only work with a certain revisions of a dependent package it has to state say. I do see a useful

Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies for ZCML

2009-03-17 Thread Martijn Faassen
Tres Seaver wrote: [snip] Please don't put words in my mouth. I *do* care that the mega-frameworks succeed. My apologies, I got this impression because you very much want to frame the debate in terms of libraries, but I understand that is also a way to try to improve the whole. However,

Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies for ZCML

2009-03-17 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey, Carsten Senger wrote: [snip] zcml contains many useful informations and I often use it as documentation how things fit together. It would be a loss to detach all zcml from the implementations into one/few big zcml packages. Moving them into one dedicated zcml for every package leaves

Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies for ZCML

2009-03-17 Thread Stephan Richter
On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote: If a package defines a *lot* of ZCML, we will have to wonder about the purpose of the package (is this really a library-like package or more like an application defining a UI or something?), and we'll have to think about another strategy. I

Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies for ZCML

2009-03-17 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey Tim, Tim Hoffman wrote: I would like to chime in here on the zcml [snip] Thanks for this balanced view which gives points that can be used to support both sides in the discussion: * today, the ZCML is very useful to understand how a package is supposed to be put together. Removing the

[Zope-dev] Windows binary egg for zope.interface 3.5.1?

2009-03-17 Thread Chris Withers
Hi All (maybe just Jim? ;-) ), Just did a buildout involving zope.interface and got: Getting distribution for 'zope.interface'. WARNING: An optional code optimization (C extension) could not be compiled.

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-17 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: [snip] I see no useful different between x.y and x.y.z here. All I want is if someone installs one of our packages that package will work as expected. If a package will only work with a certain revisions of a dependent package it

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-17 Thread Roger Ineichen
Hi Wichert, Steering Group? Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: [snip] I see no useful different between x.y and x.y.z here. All I want is if someone installs one of our packages that

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-17 Thread Shane Hathaway
Roger Ineichen wrote: What do you do if version x.y works with d.e.d but not with d.e.e (because it's borken) and fixed in d.e.f. This means you could use d.e.d or d.e.f. but not d.e.e What's your solution then? Fix the version to d.e.d or d.e.f or skip fixing versions? The version

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-17 Thread Stephan Richter
On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Shane Hathaway wrote: The version requirements in setup.py should specify only API compatibility.  They have nothing to do with bug fixes; that's the domain of the KGS.  How about an example. Yes, that's a good summary of what we agreed on. The more I think about it,

Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies for ZCML

2009-03-17 Thread Martin Aspeli
Stephan Richter wrote: On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote: If a package defines a *lot* of ZCML, we will have to wonder about the purpose of the package (is this really a library-like package or more like an application defining a UI or something?), and we'll have to think about