Hi Martijn. I respect the points you make, but disagree with your
comments. Wichert's reply accurately articulates what we are asking
buildout to do. I share this view.
On a personal note, I tend to rely on my own version lists but refer to
the online lists (for support in creating them). On explicit vs
implicit, it is debatable any time you consider incorporating implicit
behaviour.
When you make the point about versions duplication, you may not be
considering the utility of buildout. In fact, a buildout does not
require a setup.py at all. setup.py is only a requirement for packaging
in python. Buildout is already being used together with other packaging
solutions and in other ways as I have previously mentioned. Overall,
buildout cfg files are an abstraction. Its most attractive features are
that it is simple, readable, fairly well documented and without a great
deal of obfuscation or magic. You may consider a recipe and utility
script that uses versions to help build a setup.py. It would seem more
in line with the character of the software.
Regards,
David
Martijn Faassen wrote:
David Pratt wrote:
Hi. I agree with Jim. Buildout is doing the right thing. This is not a
conflict since you have explicitly identified the software with a
version already. I think the right thing to do under the circumstances
would be to append a custom versions.cfg to nail the versions you
want. KGS versions is a point in time list and it does not apply to
the full scope of what buildout is being used for. I believe this
should be kept in mind since it serves more than z3.
Changes to buildout to have it automatically do the 'right' thing
opens the implicit versus explicit argument. A developer would then
need to be aware of the implicit cases that would cause a different
software selection. Much like zcml configuration in zope, I want to
tell buildout what to do and have it do it without surprise (or for
that matter fighting any implicit nature folks may be inclined to give
it). While I understand the concern about the development egg for your
build, I would see any move in this direction as corrupting the nature
of buildout to 'do what you have told it to do'
I want to tell buildout what to do have it do it without surprise as
well. I was surprised when it didn't do what I expected: give priority
to the develop package. Why else would I choose to put it on the develop
line?
I take it you have run into this and weren't surprised at all, then?
I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here.
Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit action, and
you place it on that line because you want to *develop on it*. Having
another package being picked up is surprising.
I realize that it has a reason: it does what you tell it do. But lists
of locked versions are things that are frequently maintained offline -
even sitting off on some URL, and maintained by someone else. Yes,
indirectly you are telling buildout about versions, but you may not be
very aware of it. These are long lists, after all. It'd be nice if these
lists could be treated as mostly opaque (encapsulation) and that you can
simply look at what's in setup.py instead.
That is not possible now. You need to *know* that it lists the package
you are trying to hack on, and you need to know that you need to add it
to [versions]. The workaround I find myself using frequently now is this:
[versions]
the_package =
I don't see the point when I already say this in 'develop'.
Regards,
Martijn
_______________________________________________
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 )
