On Nov 14, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Thomas Weholt wrote: > > I've been a fan of Turbogears since the first announcement, but > recently I've become more and more sceptical about using it. It's > ok to > build a framework on third-party modules, but in turbogears this is > beginning to look crazy. Just look at the list of packages listed at > http://www.turbogears.org/download/index.html. I don't know how > many of > these you absolutely need to get turbogears running, but all my > attempts at downloading the latest release have failed lately because > of some missing third-party module or something that won't compile.
This is part of the reason why I created the new tgsetup script. It removes some more details. In fact, the plan is for there to be *more* dependencies, not fewer... because, we're breaking more parts of TurboGears itself into reusable parts (like the widgets). > This was no problem in the start of the project. It was a brilliant > showcase of good use of setuptools. If there's a way around this, to > download just the core modules you need to get started it should be > better documented on the homepage. The download page needs to change to just say this: 1. Install Python 2. Download tgsetup.py 3. Run tgsetup.py That's it. > And as more and more users switch to > python 2.5 turbogears lags behind because alot of the third-party > modules aren't 2.5-compatible. Actually, Pyrex has been the main holdup. As Jorge mentioned, at this point we should be able to make things work with 2.5, but someone needs to try it out. > I've also tried to keep track of the progress of Turbogears using the > trac.turbogears.org-site, but the roadmap shows little or no progress > lately. Are there being done any serious work on the core issues? A few people have gone in and helped clean things up a lot. Some issues will get attention and others won't... it's all a question of what people's priorities are. If someone steps forward on the turbogears-trunk list and says "I want to fix this bug, any pointers?" I think they'd get some useful help and get the bug fixed. > Sorry, if this seems like just complaining, and you can say "Why don't > you dive into the code, fix the bugs, contribute patches etc." all you > want. I've been sitting on the fence waiting for turbogears to reach > 1.0, be easy to download and use and then suggest it as an alternative > to .NET-based solutions at my workplace. My first encounter with > turbogears was love at first sight so I really want turbogears to be a > success. Things are getting cleaned up, docs are getting cleaned up and put together and tgsetup eliminates a bunch of installation hassle. There are probably a couple more bugs that absolutely must get fixed, but otherwise I think the product is pretty good. > I wish my timeschedule allowed me more time to work on projects like > this, then maybe I could really contribute and help solve some of the > issues I've mentioned here. Many of you guys probably have the same > problem. But anyway, keep up the good work. I *do* appreciate the work > you do, even if this message might make you think I don't. It's always good to hear both the good and bad of people's impressions of our software. Thanks for sharing! Kevin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
