On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 10:23:30PM -0400, Benji York wrote: > Brian Sutherland wrote: > > Log message for revision 68639: > > A basic makefile, the ZPL and copyright headers. > > Is there consensus about adding makefiles like this (diff below)? I > personally don't like the idea, but I wanted to bring it up to the list. > > I don't like them for a couple of reasons. First, they're make files; > that's an automatic strike :). Second, they're not useful > cross-platform; if what they're doing is important, then they should be > Python scripts, if not, then they shouldn't exist. Third, /I/ don't > value what they're doing for me. > > Other opinions?
Firstly, being the one that added these, i'll take them out/replace them according to the consensus. But here's my objective: The reason I put them there in the first place is to nudge committers to create both the tarball and egg (for perhaps more than one python version) when creating a new release. The makefiles are not required and are trivially replacable by whatever type of script you want. Why do I need a tarball and not just an egg? Well, Debian (and I presume other) packaging systems always build from tarballs. There are also automated tools to check for the presence of new upstream tarballs. So if I am packaging zc.table for example and a committer makes a new egg-only release I have to take a number of extra steps: * Actually notice that there is a new release. * Download the tag, make a tarball, and upload it. Where to from here? I guess I could replace them with a make-a-release.py script which just invokes the setup.py script for the tarball and a list of python versions. Or we could enforce this within the setup.py (Too invasive in my opinion). -- Brian Sutherland Metropolis - "it's the first movie with a robot. And she's a woman. And she's EVIL!!" _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com