Hey, Chris McDonough wrote: [snip] > I'd hope you'd agree that given a perfect world where packaging structure > backwards compatibility was not a concern: > > - The original distribution structure was a mistake. > > - Changing it would be a bugfix.
I think we should've gone for an approach where we slowly peeled off independent packages from a big ball in iterative fashion, instead of the giant explosion we ended up with. (assuming the tools allow us to do so) Whether changing it back now would be a bug fix: I don't know, for two reasons: * we have the ability now to do fine-grained bugfix and feature releases of individual packages without having to coordinate all code. This of course is also a minus, sometimes. * more nebulous: I do find that the explosion, for all its flaws, helped us with identifying bad dependencies. Peeling off packages would allow us to do this too, however. > That said, given your other arguments in prior mails today, I'll give up > agitating for any packaging changes on this maillist, because it's pretty > much > impossible to argue against the article of faith that there is some presumed > majority of > thousands-of-people-who-depend-on-those-packages-as-distributed-now-and-whom-will-forever-want-to-do-so-and-whose-world-will-explode-if-we-take-them-away. meta: I don't like how you say that this is an article of faith, because you seem to imply that we're superstitious with this. Concretely I have quite a few codebases around that depend on the current package list being present. They'd stop working if we suddenly withdrew these packages from PyPI. I think there are quite a few others in the same position. > Maybe when setuptools grows "provides" and "obsoletes" setup parameters (ala > RPM), this particular problem can be solved better technically. Yes, something like that would probably help. [snip] >> As indications I propose: >> >> "This package is intended to be independently reusable in any Python >> project. It is maintained by the Zope Toolkit project." >> >> (with hopefully appended: "For more documentation on this see<narrative >> docs>.") >> >> "This package is at present not reusable without depending on a large >> chunk of the Zope Toolkit and its assumptions. It is maintained by the >> Zope Toolkit project." >> >> We can also add 'reusable' to the metadata tags in PyPI in addition to this. > > I think this is a reasonable workaround if the packaging structure does not > change. I'll start putting up a few of these notifications today. 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 )