* Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> [2011-08-30 03:51]:
> If there's some solution that doesn't break bw compat but gets what
> you're after, I couldn't possibly be opposed to it.  But I don't see how
> it can happen without some backwards incompatibility, even if that
> backwards incompatibility is the requirement that a user install
> setuptools extras to get what used to come along with the core.

Ahhhh. *slaps forehead*

There's my thinking mistake. Currently, the extras_require is *not*
necessary to get the integration bits, clients can depend on *only*
zope.component. That would have to change with my idea, and that's not
bw compatible. Right.

I have to think this over (at least) once more.


Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com · software development
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 219401 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Python, Pyramid, Plone, Zope - consulting, development, hosting
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