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 - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to