On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Alice Bevan-McGregor <[email protected]>wrote:
> This really drives me crazy. I like TurboGears, and I hate TurboGears, > because it is always a nightmare to install TurboGears. > > Historically this has been a problem, too. This is how I have to install > TG2.0b3 to get my projects working: > > http://gist.github.com/287670 > Wow. That's a lot of effort for something that's not terribly difficult, really. virtualenv --no-site-packages myvenv source myvenv/bin/activate easy_install boto TurboMail mysql-python ipython PIL easy_install -i http://www.turbogears.org/2.0/downloads/2.0b3/indextg.devtools Of course, if you add in: dependency_links=['http://www.turbogears.org/2.0/downloads/2.0b3/index'] to your app's setup.py, and add in the appropriate install_requires to your app's setup.py, you'd get rid of that first easy_install, and make your life a lot easier. You could also maintain your own PyPI, allowing you to have your own eggs and get rid of that patch line entirely. It would wind up making your installation process much easier and much more repeatable. To each their own, I guess. > I’ll simply say that getting TG working is very easy for me, and always has > been. The only times I've ever had issue are when something happens outside > of TG control, such as what appears to have happened with you. > > This is a non-answer. The ‘it works for me’ defence doesn’t improve > customer relations. > I find it interesting to note what gets said, and compare to what is not said. It can provide some interesting insights on occasion. In this case, I note that you deride my own answer, while not questioning the stated issue of "this never works and is always broken for everybody." Interesting. > Now, looking at your error report, you've left out pretty much everything > you can possibly leave out, and still claim to have submitted a trouble > report. You’ve left out which version of Linux you're using, and which > version of Python you're using. Both of those are normally quite important > to include, since they can tell us what's going on. > > At least there isn’t a screenshot attached as a word document. Obviously > you didn’t need the above information, however, to help solve the problem. > Actually, we don't know that it did solve the problem, since we've not heard back from Victor. We only know that, when given that same amount of information from other people, we have found later that they were on Python 2.6, and the fix I provided here fixed things for them. Until we hear back from Victor, we can only assume that the same is true here. > A broken release is a broken release, and there is no obvious mention of > the problem or work-around in the docs or site. (Esp. considering a large > number of developers use Macs, and the current version of the operating > system includes 2.6.) > If the release were broken, it wouldn't work in other installations, either. As it does work (notably with Python 2.5 and 2.4), I would posit that the package is not broken. It falls into the category of "incompatible". Since the Python release cycle created incompatibilities between 2.5 and 2.6 (granted, they did an amazing job with how few they created, but they still created some), and Python 2.6 started coming into use so much after the release of 2.0.3, I have to believe that nothing was broken, simply incompatible. It will be fixed in the next release. And you are correct that this is not in the documentation. We've only become aware of it recently ourselves, and (so as to avoid creating consistency issues), will be updating docs at the same time we update to 2.0.4. -- Michael J. Pedersen My IM IDs: Jabber/[email protected], ICQ/103345809, AIM/pedermj022171 Yahoo/pedermj2002, MSN/[email protected] -- 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.
