2009/3/5 Benji York <be...@zope.com>:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Baiju M wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dan Korostelev <nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2009/3/2 Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com>:
>>>>>>>> -<include package="zope.file"/>
>>>>>>> I believe people still use the ZCML "slug" files like the above.
>>>>>> They certainly aren't related to 'zpkg'. The intent of the slugs was to
>>>>>> allow for something like 'sites-available' / 'sites-enabled' (the
>>>>>> pattern in a stock Debian Apache2 install).
>>>>>> I think it is particularly unfortunate to remove support for explicit,
>>>>>> granular configuration at the same time as folks seem to be jumping to
>>>>>> implicit (aka "majyk") tools.
>>>>>> Please revert this part of the change.
>>>>> I just reverted the change, however, I don't think that the "slug"
>>>>> files are useful anymore.
>>>> I cannot see similar slugs in other packages either.
>>> Agreed. I don't understand Tres's or Benji's point either; thanks to
>>> buildout we've left such slugs long behind us I thought. Typically
>>> people would symlink these into an old old installation of Zope 3 (or
>>> copy them over).
>>> Explicit granular configuration isn't broken at all; if you want to
>>> explicitly include zope.file, you include its configure.zcml, not its
>>> Unless Tres comes back with some convincing explanation soon, please do
>>> get rid of this stuff.
>> Those files exist to allow for a use case we may have abandoned, which
>> is allowing packages to be installed in such a way that a tool could
>> help users enable / disable their configurations, without mutating
>> something like 'site.zcml'. The folks who might have that usecase are
>> those who package zope3 components for deployment outside buildout (as
>> .deb / .rpm, etc.)
>> I don't know if there is such an audience; Benji also pointed out that
>> he thought there were such folks.
> I don't doubt there are still at least a few, but I also don't think we
> are supporting that use case very well moving forward. We just need to
> make an explicit decision to drop support, and then we can remove the
> slug files.
Can we have an "official desicion from The Steering Group" on that?
>> My initial reaction to Dan's removal
>> was that the checkin message ("remove zpkg stuff") had nothing to do
>> with that particular change: 'zpkg' was entirely separate from slugs.
> Same here.
Well, I simply didn't mention the removal of zcml slug, I know that
it's not related to zpkg.
WBR, Dan Korostelev
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -