Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip zope.interface missing]
Hm, so it was checked by setup. Dang.  Well, we could hack around this
in various ways, but it wouldn't be fun.

Yes, it appears it was checked by setup.py. In my experience the diversity of special setup.py's out there is a good example of why it's bad to do too much configuration in Python code. This is ironic given that I'm advocating Grok, but I guess there are good and bad ways to do this kind of configuration. :)

In general, it makes me uncomfortable to be relying on there being an egg when the project appears to have an active antipathy to easy_install and eggs.

It would be enough to rely on their being s source release that we could
use without too much pain. Of course that remains to be seen. :)
At this stage, I certainly wouldn't use the lack of egg support as a reason
to disqualify Twisted.

I agree, and I didn't mean tot say that it was. I'm just saying it's another strike against. I was really disappointed in the hostility they seemed to display against eggs. It starts to add up after a while.

That said, I've just dropped a note to the author of the FAPWS WSGI (who also appears to be involved with Twisted) with an introduction and asking him what's up. :)



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

Reply via email to