* Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> [2009-08-12 11:52]:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring<w...@gocept.com> wrote:
>>* Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> [2009-08-12 01:36]:
>>> In playing with this today, I'm inclined to think that it would be
>>> simpler to use a list of packages in an option to specify the packages
>>> to be tested and used a versions section to specify versions, rather
>>> than using a controlled-packages configuration file.
>> This doesn't strike me as simpler to *use* (as I said earlier, I'd much
>> prefer a *single* gesture of "use this KGS" to set up both the versions
>> and the list of packages to run tests for, and I think it's worth
>> spending effort to get there), but I'm not sure that's what you meant.
>> What makes you prefer two files instead of one?
> I didn't say anything about 2 files.  I said I prefered a parts list
> in a single option in combination with a standard buildout versions
> section.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. In fact, I'm not hung up about the number
of files all that much, but rather I'm searching for a way not to
duplicate information. And that seems rather diffcult, since you

> - We'll need the versions section to consume the KGS.  That is, given
> a KGS, you'll often want to use the versions in other buildouts to
> limit them to the known good configuration.

...while Martijn said here 
that the KGS will need to store more information about each package than
a versions section can handle.

> - The parts section and versions section could be specified in a
> single file, so the "gesture" for using them could be pretty simple.

This seems to be the best we can do, given the above requirements.
If I understand you correctly, that file would then look something like this:

zope.foo = 1.2.3
grok.bar = 1.1.0
thirdparty.dependency = 4.4

tested = true
kgs = ztk
develop = http://svn.zope.org/repos/main/zope.foo/branches/1.2

tested = true
develop = http://svn.zope.org/repos/main/grok.bar/trunk

tested = no

z3c.recipe.compattest/kgs would learn to extract all sections from the
above where tested=true. And zope.kgs/zope.release could then probably
be retired (or am I missing something?).

> - I think a parts list in an option will be easier to control.  For
> example, you will be able to use the standard buildout option
> incrementing and decrementating machinery to modify it.

I don't understand how a parts list could help here.


Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to