-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Feb 16, 2009, at 13:29 , yuppie wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> I'm wondering, ist it necessary to declare a dependency where we know
>> that it is a required dependency for another dependency we already
>> declare? Specifically, if CMFDefault is declared as dependency, is it
>> necessary to also declare CMFCore because we know CMFDefault already
>> declares it?
> No. But as Hanno pointed out yesterday, it is good practice to specify
> all *direct* dependencies:
> The Zope2 package is an exception because it represents the Zope 2
> platform and ships with a KGS. So direct dependencies on packages
> also depends on should not be specified if Zope2 is specified as
> I thought that was consensus, but if you don't agree I'm fine with
> further discussions.
No, don't get me wrong, I did not signal any disagreement or
agreement ;-) I was just wondering if there was a new set of "best
practices" that I missed. I did not draw the line between the other
discussion and your checkins at all, it did not strike me as related.
Does anyone else have a specific opinion for this case, disregarding
the five.localsitemanager discussion?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests