Jeff Rush wrote:
Data.fs.in contains nothing but the examples folder, if I remember correctly. Zope has no trouble starting without Data.fs.in. Just ignore it. ;-)I don't quite understand -- so there *are* root level elements specific to Zope that need to be copied into a Zope-over-ZEO environment? (hm, how do those elements get into a non-FileStorage Zope-over-ZEO environment?)And do those elements interfere even a little in a non-Zope-just-ZEO environment? The only way I can imagine, other than simplistic name clashes would be if a full iteration of such a ZODB would cause unghosting of objects lacking Zope .pyc and raise unnecessary exceptions. I ask because I'm trying to decide whether two ZEO RPMs are needed re ZEO-wo-Zope-2.0-1.i386.rpm and ZEO-w-Zope-2.0-1.i386.rpm, or just one. Somewhat similar to how the Zope RPMs have separate ZServer and PCGI flavor packages.
Can we discuss the package separation, BTW? It doesn't currently feel optimal. There really shouldn't be a ZServer package, since ZServer is bound tightly with Zope2. I would want to see the following packages:
The both the Zope2 and ZEO2 packages should depend on the ZODB3 package and the system python package (which must be Python 2.1.x, not Python 2.2.x). The Zope2-pcgi package should depend on the Zope2 package.
Some suggested add-ons:
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce