Am 07.02.2007 um 00:36 schrieb Martin Aspeli:

Why? Is it the ability to specify sensible version restrictions? Have multiple versions of the same package as different dependencies for different dependents? Automatic downloading of dependencies where possible/desired? Standardised package metadata? Standardised location to find and search for add-on libraries?

You mean the existing approach didn't support this? Ever heard of sys.path? Sorry, I don't want to waste bandwidth on the CMF list on a flame war. Eggs are there and I will have to learn to live with them but I don't have to like them.

I know what's driving it and I know it's unfortunately almost unavoidable but I don't have to like it. I've never had a problem with using Products especially since the introduction of "local" Products with Zope 2.7.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Python world came up with something better and more widely accepted. Until Zope 2.10 and Plone 3, the whole Plone and CMF stack depended on no library that was re-usable outside of Zope (apart from PIL, and unless you count parts of Zope 3 shipped with Zope 2.8+). Eggs make your life easier, especially if you want to use tools like or zc.buildout.

This is guff. Why should Zope add-ons *necessarily* be available as third-party libraries? But if this is required it's no big deal to put the Zope specific stuff in a Products folder and the library in ../lib/python. Works fine for mxODBC

Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226

Zope-CMF maillist  -

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to