Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On 8/19/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What's the problem with top level packages?
> Nothing. But when we have loads of empty top level packages that each
> have a couple of modules it gets confusing, since you need to keep
> track of what does which.
> Eggs solves it for installations, but not fore developers which find
> and want to fix bugs. :-)

Again, like Fred said, this is a misconception. Eggs support a
development mode [1]_ that registers a repository checkout as an egg. To
setuptools, it's an egg, to you it's a checkout.

... _[1] http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#development-mode

> I would much more prefer if we could keep all small useful packages in
> some sort of kommon namespace, which we know holds loads of small
> useful packages. If this in unfeasible, then fine, I'll just have to
> live with it.

Fred already said this: it's not the amount of namespaces we have, it's
the amount of packages and their metadata. I'm *strongly* suggesting we
use the Cheesehop as much as we can. I think that the ZSCP proposal
might help us create the necessary and useful metadata for packages,
whether we need a custom website for that or not is questionable.

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to