On Jul 19, 2007, at 1:09 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 19 Jul 2007, at 00:43 , Jim Fulton wrote:
On Jul 18, 2007, at 5:24 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Up until now we've been a bit sloppy when it came to egg
dependencies. Not specifying a version number or range basically
means that the code in question assumes it will work with any
future version of its dependency. Admittedly, setuptools doesn't
exactly make it easy to say "I depend on ZODB 3.8.x". Jim has
proposed to add a syntax to setuptools to support this nicely but
it's not there yet. So I guess we'll have to wait for that.
Heads up: I've come to think that depending on major revisions/
series isn't going to work. I'll say more about that in a
separate thread though.
Now you tell us :).
I just realized this over the weekend and even then wanted to discuss
it with some folks.
In the long run, it might be better to only reuse packages that
offer some backward compatibility promises. Depending on a
specific version will make the dependent packages less reusable.
That makes sense. So, coming back to the real world: we have two
issues at hand. One is docutils, one is zope.testbrowser which
depends on mechanize and ClientForm (Adam is working on that, CCing
him as well).
With docutils I understand that it makes much sense to do this at
application level. With mechanize and ClientForm I'm not so sure.
What I *do* know is that the current situation (packaging them
*inside* the zope.testbrowser egg) isn't ideal (same goes for
Should the next zope.testbrowser simply depend on any version of
mechanize and ClientForm?
I hope so. :)
 This problem has bitten us over at Grok because apparently
Ubuntu has decided to deploy docutils 0.4.1 which doesn't seem to
actually exist anywhere and therefore confuses zc.buildout. See
I'm fairly sure that this has nothing to do with version numbers.
I suspect instead that it has something to do with the fact that
all distributions are now installed as "develop eggs" on ubuntu.
The locations of these eggs is actually site-packages. This sounds
very wonky to me, but Phillip Eby says it is normal.
It's actually necessary (to install these things as eggs) because
many packages nowadays depend on entry points. One could argue,
obviously, that their location (site-packages) isn't ideal...
My objection isn't to install them as eggs, I'm a big fan of eggs,
I'm just mystified by installing them as develop eggs. In any case,
PJE tells me this is correct, so I need to deal with it.
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python
CTO (540) 361-1714
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Zope3-dev mailing list