Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm not clear on what the advantage would be. I'm probably missing
some use cases. I think they are both valid approaches to the problem.
my main usecase is to be able to use buildouts in a workingenv without
having to rewrite the recipes... right now, I have to do one or the
Sure. I still don't know what that means. :)
*Maybe* you'd like to use workingenv to install eggs and use buildout to do
other things like set up zope instances. If that's the case, then it's
just a matter of writing recipes that take into account how you install
and scripts. But maybe that's not what you mean.
If people really see value in having buildout and workingenv work
together, perhaps Ian and I could explore this a bit at PyCon next
+1. my general feeling is that there is a enough overlap that this
would be beneficial.
Specific use cases would help to guide this.
the main usecase for me is the following... hanno writes a recipe for
plone, and I want to use that recipe as part of setting up a openplans
development environment (for example inside my workingenv that I've been
developing w/out plone).
I'd like with minimal effort to have build in my setup without having to
dig too deep into the existing buildout or the framework driving it.
This might be as simple as having buildout(at my own risk), do less with
creating special pythonpaths in scripts(or perhaps just appending the
existing one as the zope2 zopectl script does now).
I'd also like to have the development eggs and normal eggs go where I
currently have my eggs(lib/python, /src). as I believe you've pointed
out that can be done by simple modification of the cfg file and that'd
try to justify why a zope hammer is better and why zope folk keep
building new hammers that don't play nice with everyone else's
hammer loses us cred.
You seem to be implying that workingenv is somehow a standard tool
and that buildout is a zope-specific tool that needlessly duplicates
a standard tool.
I was perhaps offbase in my comment about egg handling.
workingenv of course is not a standard tool. what I'm presenting here
is a perspective I face on a regular basis; for a developer using
workingenv already, it's far more standard than something else he is
not using...and vice versa.
No, it's more familiar -- to these people.
actually, in my current workplace, workingenv is the standard way to set
up one's dev environment. but in the context of the previous statement,
familar is perhaps a better word.
in the case of tools that enable a developer to start quickly,
developers are very difficult to ween from habits that are currently
working. when a large and complex task such as building plone becomes
codified in a technology that is not familar or easily compatible with
the the developers current environment, it's an issue.
The alternative seems to be a custom shell script. I can see how this
would be familiar to the people who wrote it. When there are well
established and documented buildout recipes for doing common tasks, then
there will be familiar tools, for some definition of familiar.
this is where rob started with our deployment strategy. I like buildit
and buildout's codification of what happens in a build in cfg file since
it creates a fairly auditable place to see what is happening(as well as
extend it). we are going to re-write the shell scripts using buildit
and if plone uses zc.buildout, would like not to have to replicate that
part in our own system.
zc.buildout is in no way zope specific. Can a Zope developer not
develop a tool without it being stamped as "zope specific"?
maybe... maybe not. When a developer struggles with more than one
tool from the same general source, it matters little to them whether
one depends on the other or not. That's true for languages,
companies, frameworks and everything else.
I think it really depends whether something transcends it's immediate
community(and maybe here whether a z floats in front of it's name
So lets see. To contribute to the wider Python community, I should
change the name of my Company or change jobs. Hm.
for packages from zope or plone people, if they rides roughly with
existing python techs
In what way does buildout "ride roughly with existing python techs".
It builds on setuptools. Do you mean that if there is another
community package that does something somewhat similar, we aren't
allow to create a similar package just because we are associated with
the Zope project.
> and come from a zopeish repository,
Oh, I have to use a different repository.
sadly they are liable to get branded w/ a legacy reputation that
haunts the name.
Has it occurred to you that the problem here doesn't lie with the
Zope project or Zope developers?
inversely, those of us zope and plonistas may be a bit uncritical of
projects coming from close to home
Oh, as someone who gets lots of criticism, I really don't think that
is much of a problem.
and allow such technologies to stay inaccessible to wider audiences.
How are we doing this? The primary forum for discussing buildout
is the distutils sig. It is released through PyPI. It doesn't depend
on any other technology that we use -- other than Python.
What should I do to make it more accessible?
jim, this is not a personal attack on zope corp or the good work you
guys have done.
It is merely an observation about our entire community concerning some
of social factors pertinent to this end of the python pond stated as an
answer to what was obviously a rhetorical question by you. I apologize
if it seemed otherwise.
I won't address your new set rhetorical questions/statements, except to
say that we, zope community in toto, are the only people who can take
action on our side of our relationship with the rest the world.
in making zc.buildout a widely useful minimal dependency technology and
by taking part in this conversation(as acrimonious as it may seem at
this point), I think you are positively effecting this relationship.
Hopefully the outcome of this conversation will mean that plone using
zc.buildout won't in any way be divisive for people who choose different
ways of setting up their development environments and have one less
reason to bounce off of plone and therefore zope.
------ d. whit morriss ------
- senior engineer, opencore -
- http://www.openplans.org -
- m: 415-710-8975 -
"If you don't know where you are,
you don't know anything at all"
Dr. Edgar Spencer, Ph.D., 1995
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -