On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 06:12:30PM +0000, Chris Withers wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
> > - - The docs are intended primarily for folks who want to install and
> >   run Zope, rather than hack on it.
> Says who? The last comment I had on those docs was from Marius when he 
> had to go back to a Zope 2 project and wanted to make it buildout based.

I wanted to upgrade Zope 2 on a local non-profit's server.  I found the
INSTALL document.  It gave me many options, which was confusing.  I
picked the buildout option since I thought it was the one blessed by the
Zope community.  I went through some paint getting it to work, and I
consider myself to be pretty familiar with buildout.

In retrospect I think I should've used virtualenv + mkzopeinstance.

I'm +10 for having a single recommended install option documented in
INSTALL.txt.  Let the other options be relegated to appendices in a
separate file, for people who think they want buildout/rpm/whatever.

I don't much care if that option is buildout or virtualenv or anything
else, as long as it is reasonably simple and works well for most users.
Currently I'm feeling +0.9 towards virtualenv over buildout, but this
feeling slowly oscillates over time.  A while ago I preferred buildout
over virtualenv; now I just need to experience a certain number of
virtualenv bugs and issues to swing me back.  ;-)

> > - - zc.buildout is *super* heavyweight compared to virtualenv
> A point of view, I don't happeen to agree, especially for the simple 
> case of an instance... virtualenv doesn't fit my brain, buildout does. 

That is a curious observation.  I find it much easier to understand what
virtualenv does and how it does it: the underlying model is simpler.  Of
course it has fewer features than buildout, which is why I use buildout
for *development*, but I've seen the cost of those features in increased
complexity and difficulty of debugging when something goes wrong.

Actually, now that I think about it more, a buildout would have one
advantage over virtualenv: with a fixed versions.cfg your Zope 2
installs won't start failing when somebody uploads a
new-improved-and-incompatible version of zope.component into PyPI.

> > - - We have two alternate zc.buildout scenarios (install Zope + run
> >   mkzopeinstance vs. self-contained environment).
> Yes, I'm much more for the latter, but when I tried to make that "the 
> only way", someone whined, so I tried to stay neutral...

There will always be people who whine :(

Marius Gedminas
http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3 consulting and development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

Reply via email to