Hi Benji. I don't like the first option. I am already using a zope
extras to group packages for other reasons and don't really want to mix
this with the test extra. I am trying to use extras as much as possible
opposed to listing reams of packages in buildout.cfg to keep it cleaner
and simpler. I don't mind the strange name to be honest, the namespaces
are informative. Many thanks.
Benji York wrote:
I have a small issue with zope.testbrowser packaging I'd like to get
some input on. If I were to have started the project today, it would
likely have been zc.testbrowser, which would have no Zope 3 dependencies
(or functionality) and zc.testbrowser.zope, which would have, and
depended on zc.testbrowser. Well, that didn't happen, but there are
parallels to the current situation that might be informative.
There is a configuration bug in testbrowser that means that unless you
include the "test" extra, you won't get the Zope 3 dependencies. I
suspect most people either include that extra, or accidentally include
the dependencies through other packages. I have two ideas for fixing this:
1) introduce a "zope" extra that everyone will have to use (basically
just rename "test" to "zope";
2) take a lesson from the fictional zc.testbrowser and introduce another
package (zope.testbrowser.zope) that contains the Zope 3 bits and
depends on zope.testbrowser.
I think I prefer the second, despite it's strange appearance. Thoughts?
Zope3-dev mailing list