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 )

Reply via email to