Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-28 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey, On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] but I don't see it flying given the sentiments against that idea so far. Perhaps I'm wrong. Humm. Maybe there's just a misunderstanding. I didn't get that you wanted to only trump version pinning,

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-27 Thread Martijn Faassen
Christian Theune wrote: [snip] Here's an idea: Let `develop` trump version pinning, but not any other constraints. As far as I can see this would allow both of our scenarios to work or continue to work. I'd be happy with that too, and was really what I was aiming at, and I think it doesn't

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-27 Thread Christian Theune
Hi, Martijn Faassen schrieb: Christian Theune wrote: [snip] Here's an idea: Let `develop` trump version pinning, but not any other constraints. As far as I can see this would allow both of our scenarios to work or continue to work. I'd be happy with that too, and was really what I was

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-27 Thread Lennart Regebro
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Christophe Combelles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But probably the feature has been created before the name 'develop' was chosen, and it should have an other name ('egg_path'? 'local_egg'?). source_egg? -- Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-27 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Christophe Combelles wrote: Martijn Faassen a écrit : (...) I think the term 'develop' is badly chosen. You are right if you argue while having the meaning of 'develop' in mind. You are explaining what you think a 'develop' option should be. A 'develop' option means: I want to 'develop'

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Christian Theune wrote: Martijn Faassen schrieb: [snip] I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here. Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit action, and you place it on that line because you want to *develop on it*. Having another package being picked

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Christian Theune
Hi, Martijn Faassen schrieb: Christian Theune wrote: Martijn Faassen schrieb: [snip] I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here. Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit action, and you place it on that line because you want to *develop on it*.

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
David Pratt wrote: Hi Martijn. I respect the points you make, but disagree with your comments. Wichert's reply accurately articulates what we are asking buildout to do. I share this view. It's not very useful to talk about a we asking buildout to do things when there is clearly a debate and

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Christian Theune wrote: Martijn Faassen schrieb: [snip] It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the version number) repeats here. It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that those functions are actually orthogonal). The rule for the most

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: Christian Theune wrote: Martijn Faassen schrieb: [snip] It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the version number) repeats here. It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that those functions are actually

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Fred Drake
[Originally sent to Martin only; meant to send to the list.] On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Meanwhile, you're satisfied already with actually looking at setup.py of the develop package and then repeating the version number *too*. It's

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: Christian Theune wrote: Martijn Faassen schrieb: [snip] It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the version number) repeats here. It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that those

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: Christian Theune wrote: Martijn Faassen schrieb: [snip] It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the version number) repeats here. It's not clear to me that it's a DRY

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Christophe Combelles
Martijn Faassen a écrit : (...) I think the term 'develop' is badly chosen. You are right if you argue while having the meaning of 'develop' in mind. You are explaining what you think a 'develop' option should be. A 'develop' option means: I want to 'develop' on this package, so I want it

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Aaron Lehmann
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote: Martijn Faassen a écrit : (...) The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or 2) rename 'develop' to something else. So, the people that understand either get spammed with warning messages every build, or

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Christian Theune wrote: [snip] Nope. I'm not always working against a fixed version list. E.g. when I developt z3c.zalchemy then this is a library package, not an application, so I don't fix the versions but let anything that satisfies the the requirements in setup.py come in. This thread is

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Christophe Combelles
Aaron Lehmann a écrit : On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote: Martijn Faassen a écrit : (...) The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or 2) rename 'develop' to something else. So, the people that understand either get spammed with warning

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Aaron Lehmann wrote: On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote: Martijn Faassen a écrit : (...) The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or 2) rename 'develop' to something else. So, the people that understand either get spammed with warning messages

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey, Thanks everybody for this discussion. I'm going to bail out now, and I want to share some of my conclusions: * We're going to have to live with the current 'versions/develop' story for a while. I've started try to document the existing behavior in buildout's doctests (faassen-develop)

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Aaron Lehmann
On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Aaron Lehmann wrote: On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote: Martijn Faassen a écrit : (...) The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or 2) rename 'develop' to something else. So, the people

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-26 Thread Christian Theune
Hi, Martijn Faassen schrieb: Christian Theune wrote: [snip] Nope. I'm not always working against a fixed version list. E.g. when I developt z3c.zalchemy then this is a library package, not an application, so I don't fix the versions but let anything that satisfies the the requirements in

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-25 Thread Martijn Faassen
David Pratt wrote: Hi. I agree with Jim. Buildout is doing the right thing. This is not a conflict since you have explicitly identified the software with a version already. I think the right thing to do under the circumstances would be to append a custom versions.cfg to nail the versions you

[Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-25 Thread Martijn Faassen
Christian Theune wrote: Stephan Richter schrieb: On Saturday 23 February 2008, Jim Fulton wrote: The additional version specification should be merged into the extends version section. The version 1.3.1dev is the version the develop egg specifies. Yes. That's how it works now. Cool,

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-25 Thread Christian Theune
Hi, Martijn Faassen schrieb: David Pratt wrote: Hi. I agree with Jim. Buildout is doing the right thing. This is not a conflict since you have explicitly identified the software with a version already. I think the right thing to do under the circumstances would be to append a custom

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-25 Thread Christian Theune
Hi, Martijn Faassen schrieb: Christian Theune wrote: Stephan Richter schrieb: On Saturday 23 February 2008, Jim Fulton wrote: The additional version specification should be merged into the extends version section. The version 1.3.1dev is the version the develop egg specifies. Yes.

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-25 Thread David Pratt
Hi Martijn. I respect the points you make, but disagree with your comments. Wichert's reply accurately articulates what we are asking buildout to do. I share this view. On a personal note, I tend to rely on my own version lists but refer to the online lists (for support in creating them). On

AW: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict

2008-02-25 Thread Roger Ineichen
Hi Christian Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict [...] I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here. Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit action, and you place it on that line because you want to *develop