Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:35:11PM +0100, Brian Sutherland wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:51:04AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: > > >>I am willing to consider a 3.2.1 release for this *after* the final. > > > > > > > > > That would also be fine. > > > > OK, if you want to proceed with this, then we'll do that. > > Ok, I committed my patches to the trunk. And have back-ported them to the release branch in 41261. -- Brian Sutherland Metropolis - "it's the first movie with a robot. And she's a woman. And she's EVIL!!" ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
Martijn Faassen wrote: ... But the app server does use parts of Zope 3 that *are* libraries, so perhaps we should start thinking about splitting things up somehow? Yes, somehow. :) (I wish I had time to master eggs ) Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
Jim Fulton wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: While it's true that this is normal for you and me, I think the cause of "zope is just a library" is much helped if we *also* consider it normal for Zope to be installed into site-packages. I'm not convinced that Zope is "just a library". Certainly, the zope package is just a library, but I don't think that the app server is. So, I just want to point out that your statement of what is normal doesn't imply that we consider installation with `configure` without '--prefix' as *abnormal* and that this is something we should support. Jim tries to figure out this triple negative ... :) Sorry. :) On Linux, configure with without --prefix does *not* install Zope into site-packages. It creates a top-level directory for Zope in /usr/local. Okay, point taken. Furthermore, we do install Zope into site-packages on Windows and this (convenient for us) decision hasn't exactly been popular. So, I reiterate that we should distinguish between releases of Zope packages and releases of the application server. I'm pretty convinced that the app server is *not* a library and shouldn't be treated as such. But the app server does use parts of Zope 3 that *are* libraries, so perhaps we should start thinking about splitting things up somehow? Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hey, Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I'm guessing that this is an issue because you install Zope's into site-packages and you don't want a Zope installed package to clobber a package that is separately packaged. Is that right? The normal way to install Zope is in it's own directory. In this case, a package supplied with Zope only affects Zope. In which case, I don't see the need to rip it out. While it's true that this is normal for you and me, I think the cause of "zope is just a library" is much helped if we *also* consider it normal for Zope to be installed into site-packages. I'm not convinced that Zope is "just a library". Certainly, the zope package is just a library, but I don't think that the app server is. So, I just want to point out that your statement of what is normal doesn't imply that we consider installation with `configure` without '--prefix' as *abnormal* and that this is something we should support. Jim tries to figure out this triple negative ... :) On Linux, configure with without --prefix does *not* install Zope into site-packages. It creates a top-level directory for Zope in /usr/local. Furthermore, we do install Zope into site-packages on Windows and this (convenient for us) decision hasn't exactly been popular. So, I reiterate that we should distinguish between releases of Zope packages and releases of the application server. I'm pretty convinced that the app server is *not* a library and shouldn't be treated as such. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
Hey, Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I'm guessing that this is an issue because you install Zope's into site-packages and you don't want a Zope installed package to clobber a package that is separately packaged. Is that right? The normal way to install Zope is in it's own directory. In this case, a package supplied with Zope only affects Zope. In which case, I don't see the need to rip it out. While it's true that this is normal for you and me, I think the cause of "zope is just a library" is much helped if we *also* consider it normal for Zope to be installed into site-packages. So, I just want to point out that your statement of what is normal doesn't imply that we consider installation with `configure` without '--prefix' as *abnormal* and that this is something we should support. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:51:04AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: > Brian Sutherland wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 07:13:16AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: > > Because I only realized it was causing a headache for me yesterday. > > I greatly appreciate your working on Debian packaging. I encourage > you to take time-based releases into account when doing this. You should > try to create Debian based on each of our beta releases, so you don't find out > late that there is a problem. Yeah, I know:( > >>I am willing to consider a 3.2.1 release for this *after* the final. > > > > > > That would also be fine. > > OK, if you want to proceed with this, then we'll do that. Ok, I committed my patches to the trunk. > >>Why do you think you need to do this? > > > > > > It is related to the debian packaging of zope 3. It is common practice > > with these packages to remove modules that can be provided by other > > debian packages. So far this has been the case only with pytz and docutils. > > I'm guessing that this is an issue because you install > Zope's into site-packages and you don't want a Zope installed > package to clobber a package that is separately packaged. Is that right? Yes, also so that if someone wants to use mechanize, they don't have to install zope3... > The normal way to install Zope is in it's own directory. In this case it becomes a lot more difficult for other programs to use parts of zope (zope.interface or ZConfig comes to mind). For example, my schooltool packages can just do "import zope", and it is there. No additions to sys.path necessary. > In this case, > a package supplied with Zope only affects Zope. In which case, I don't > see the need to rip it out. In fact, I would prefer that Zope use the > versions of packages that came with it, since these are the versions > it has been tested with. OTOH, if you create a distribution that omits > packages that are provided separately, you are taking on responsibility for > assuring that the installed Zope works properly. I can understand why you > would want to do this. Hopefully running the tests without the removed packages will be enough. I also try only to take these steps with code that is definitively from a different project (mechanize, pytz, docutils) and is useful in it's own right. Actually it is pretty easy to set up a debian chroot which upgrades itself and tests its Zope 3 installation every week or so. But I am missing both the time and hardware. > > The relevant code in the debian rules file is (yes, I know it is nasty, > > but there doesn't seem to be a "right way"): > > > > zbase= Zope-3.2.0b2 > > > > > > > > unpack: unpack-stamp > > unpack-stamp: > > tar xfz $(zbase).tgz > > mv $(zbase) z > > # Remove docutils and pytz modules packaged in separate packages > > rm -rf z/Dependencies/docutils* > > rm -rf z/Dependencies/pytz* > > > > I also need to do the same with mechanize and it's dependencies. Since > > the latest version of mechanize depends on pullparser 0.0.7, I also need > > to remove pullparser. This is more difficult with the way pullparser > > is tied into zope today. > > Pullparser is currently distributed within the zope.testbrowser package. > It can't interfere with anything else. I suppose you just want to eliminate > the duplication. No, it's worse than that. I am trying to use mechanize 0.0.11a which depends and tests for pullparser 0.0.7. Since zope includes an older pullparser and then mungs sys.modules, it causes the mechanize in site-packages to fail. -- Brian Sutherland Metropolis - "it's the first movie with a robot. And she's a woman. And she's EVIL!!" ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
Brian Sutherland wrote: On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 07:13:16AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: ... Why wait until we are close to the release? Because I only realized it was causing a headache for me yesterday. I greatly appreciate your working on Debian packaging. I encourage you to take time-based releases into account when doing this. You should try to create Debian based on each of our beta releases, so you don't find out late that there is a problem. ... >>I am willing to consider a 3.2.1 release for this *after* the final. > > > That would also be fine. OK, if you want to proceed with this, then we'll do that. Why do you think you need to do this? It is related to the debian packaging of zope 3. It is common practice with these packages to remove modules that can be provided by other debian packages. So far this has been the case only with pytz and docutils. I'm guessing that this is an issue because you install Zope's into site-packages and you don't want a Zope installed package to clobber a package that is separately packaged. Is that right? The normal way to install Zope is in it's own directory. In this case, a package supplied with Zope only affects Zope. In which case, I don't see the need to rip it out. In fact, I would prefer that Zope use the versions of packages that came with it, since these are the versions it has been tested with. OTOH, if you create a distribution that omits packages that are provided separately, you are taking on responsibility for assuring that the installed Zope works properly. I can understand why you would want to do this. The relevant code in the debian rules file is (yes, I know it is nasty, but there doesn't seem to be a "right way"): zbase= Zope-3.2.0b2 unpack: unpack-stamp unpack-stamp: tar xfz $(zbase).tgz mv $(zbase) z # Remove docutils and pytz modules packaged in separate packages rm -rf z/Dependencies/docutils* rm -rf z/Dependencies/pytz* I also need to do the same with mechanize and it's dependencies. Since the latest version of mechanize depends on pullparser 0.0.7, I also need to remove pullparser. This is more difficult with the way pullparser is tied into zope today. Pullparser is currently distributed within the zope.testbrowser package. It can't interfere with anything else. I suppose you just want to eliminate the duplication. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 07:13:16AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: > Brian Sutherland wrote: > > Since we are close to the release, I felt compelled to ask before I did > > this. Could I revert 39890 [1] for the 3.2 release? > > No. Ok, good thing I asked first then;) I'll work around it or wait. > Why wait until we are close to the release? Because I only realized it was causing a headache for me yesterday. > > It seems that phillip finished zpkg's module support some time ago [2]. > > > > (I ask as this is causing me headaches doing the Debian packaging for > > the latest zope3) > > The first beta was nearly 2 months ago. We are trying to do timed releases > and we've already missed the deadline. I'm not willing to delay 3.2 final > for this. > > I am willing to consider a 3.2.1 release for this *after* the final. That would also be fine. > Why do you think you need to do this? It is related to the debian packaging of zope 3. It is common practice with these packages to remove modules that can be provided by other debian packages. So far this has been the case only with pytz and docutils. The relevant code in the debian rules file is (yes, I know it is nasty, but there doesn't seem to be a "right way"): zbase= Zope-3.2.0b2 unpack: unpack-stamp unpack-stamp: tar xfz $(zbase).tgz mv $(zbase) z # Remove docutils and pytz modules packaged in separate packages rm -rf z/Dependencies/docutils* rm -rf z/Dependencies/pytz* I also need to do the same with mechanize and it's dependencies. Since the latest version of mechanize depends on pullparser 0.0.7, I also need to remove pullparser. This is more difficult with the way pullparser is tied into zope today. -- Brian Sutherland Metropolis - "it's the first movie with a robot. And she's a woman. And she's EVIL!!" ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
Brian Sutherland wrote: Since we are close to the release, I felt compelled to ask before I did this. Could I revert 39890 [1] for the 3.2 release? No. Why wait until we are close to the release? It seems that phillip finished zpkg's module support some time ago [2]. (I ask as this is causing me headaches doing the Debian packaging for the latest zope3) The first beta was nearly 2 months ago. We are trying to do timed releases and we've already missed the deadline. I'm not willing to delay 3.2 final for this. I am willing to consider a 3.2.1 release for this *after* the final. Why do you think you need to do this? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
On Jan 2, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Brian Sutherland wrote: Since we are close to the release, I felt compelled to ask before I did this. Could I revert 39890 [1] for the 3.2 release? It seems that phillip finished zpkg's module support some time ago [2]. (I ask as this is causing me headaches doing the Debian packaging for the latest zope3) If you can also hook up the necessary zpkg dependency data (presumably easy enough) then I'm completely cool with it. Thanks Gary ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)
Since we are close to the release, I felt compelled to ask before I did this. Could I revert 39890 [1] for the 3.2 release? It seems that phillip finished zpkg's module support some time ago [2]. (I ask as this is causing me headaches doing the Debian packaging for the latest zope3) [1] http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-checkins/2005-November/026485.html [2] http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zpkg/2005-November/77.html -- Brian Sutherland Metropolis - "it's the first movie with a robot. And she's a woman. And she's EVIL!!" ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
