* 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 -- 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 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )