So, I saw Martijn's "paver: buildout is utterly doomed" message on
Tuesday, but I haven't had a chance to respond to it until now.
As Kent points out immediately following, I plan to use zc.buildout's
machinery. I actively use zc.buildout now, and I'm looking forward to
getting my buildout merged into my pavement.py.
I totally agree with Martijn that buildout needs a better website and
I'm glad to see that Baiju is going forward with that.
Ultimately, though, I think that people will choose to use buildout
alone or paver+buildout (or maybe paver+virtualenv, depending on their
tastes) completely based on what fits their brains better.
I emailed a fair bit with Zed Shaw about his Vellum tool. He adamantly
opposes having his builds defined in a full-blown language (ie
Python), whereas for my needs I really want to define my builds in
Python. But I want it to be easier to do than what you get with the
Python standard library.
People who prefer to keep there build information in a "data" format
will no doubt stick with buildout. I have no problem with that. My
goal is just to share the workload with other people who have similar
build and deployment problems to the ones I have.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -