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 - forsterstra├če 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


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

Reply via email to