>| Possible headache:  Python 2.4.2 requires msvcr71.dll, which is a
>| Microsoft DLL (it's akin to msvcrt.dll for Visual Studio 6 -- it's the
>| C runtime for VC 7.1), and one for which the redistribution conditions
>| are unclear (at least to me).  You can't assume that all Windows boxes
>| already have this DLL.

> Indeed. From reading around, seems like the saner thing is to make it
> a bold warning in the installer that the said dll is required instead
> of shipping it.

If you go the Zope3-route, it becomes a non-issue:  the Windows Python
installer will install msvcr71.dll if needed.  Redistribution there
isn't a problem because the PSF builds the binaries using a duly
licensed Microsoft compiler.  It's much fuzzier for "derivative works"
(do the PSF's redistribution rights pass through to them?  ask two
lawyers, get four answers).  Zope Corp could presumably invoke the
same rights because parts of Zope are compiled with a legitimately
licensed VC 7.1 -- but that might depend on who does the compliing.

>| Another:  I have no idea how the new zpkg-based build process will
>| work with a Zope2-style installer.  A Zope3-style installer is
>| different in many ways (it's a "plain" distutils-based installer, and
>| requires that the end user get and install Python & pywin32 first).
>| Plan on pain-time here.

> That's something I can play with :)

Feedback from users hasn't been exactly glowing, but it's much easier
to build an installer that way (no externals, no makefiles, no Cygwin
involved, ...).  Here's how it's done for Zope3; I don't know / can't
guess what would need to change for Zope2:

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to