Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Stephan Richter wrote: >> On Saturday 16 September 2006 05:10, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: >>>> *If* someone else had that problem too, I'd propose to change away from >>>> the fallback of using zope.conf.in (we force people to create the >>>> principals too, don't we?) >>> Right. I wouldn't mind that. +0 from me. >> >> It is all about being quick to get started. I like that; so -1 from >> me, but I do not feel strongly about the issue. > > We could automate it in the "make" process.
That's true. Additionally we currently keep zope.conf.in and zopeskel/etc/zope.conf.in I guess we could get rid of the first one and ... wait. Maybe even better would be to just create an instance in-place? Are there any more .in-things around that are endangered by accidental edits? -- gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3email@example.com Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com