+1, back to the future...

I'll note that when I was getting this stuff done in 2.7, it was incredibly useful to try to package Zope as an RPM (or deb, etc) while doing itbecause you find out where all the pointy edges are. Some of the functionality of the install routine (copyzopeskel in particular) was driven by a desire to make Zope easier to downstream- package.


- C

On Jun 22, 2006, at 10:35 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I worked last night with folks from the Fedora Extras project who were
trying to package Zope 2.9.3 for FC5+.  Because they were working from
the release tarball, generated by 'zpkg', much of my knowledge about how
the build process works (or doesn't) was invalid:

  - The Makefile generated by 'zpkg' does not have bugfixes / features
    which have been made to the 'Makefile' created by 'configure' in
    a checkout.

  - The 'install.py' script has subtly-different semantics from the
    'setup.py' script in the checkout.  In particular, it was hard
    to figure out how to get the installed libraries correct for the
    x86_64 package.

  - We have had a bunch of bugs since 2.9 related to the 'zpkg'-based
    build, some related to lost features and other to various kinds
    of breakage (see #1967, #1968, #1996, #2030, #2081, #2082, #2083,
    #2121).

  - Working inside the 'zpkg'-generated tarball is *very* confusing,
    even for experienced Zope developers:  "Where is the source?"
    is a frequent cry in such cases.

All of this is due to the fact that none of the maintainers of Zope2 is also a conusmer of the zpkg-gnereated releases; those consumers are the downstream packagers and sysadmins who have no idea how to work in that
setup, and who can't even (easily) get help on it from the Zope
developer community.

I believe that the extra flexibility which zpkg is intended to provide
(dependency-based subset distributions, primarily) would be better
served by moving Zope to use eggs, and that we should thus retire zpkg
as the means for building Zope2 releases.  Instead, we should recreate
the version of the 'inst' stuff removed in the 2.9 beta cycle, and
update it for any changes to the tree made since then.

I volunteer to do the work, assuming the community concurs.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 202-558-7113          [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEmqrH+gerLs4ltQ4RApF2AKDTWq8XqY4OCuj5BpPZ3omCpnzEtwCghPnO
nZ8S8NqTC1oZx8o3KVVJxBo=
=4qXe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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


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

Reply via email to