Tres Seaver wrote:
This is certainly an interesting approach. I'd be curious how you would
garden this known working set. Martijn makes a pretty good case for
maintaining such working sets close to the package in question (e.g. the
grok egg, the Plone egg, etc.).
I would argue that this problem is too big for "developer convenience"
to drive it: we need concerted effort from the different "communities
of interest" to manage the problem, in much the same way that Debian /
Fedora etc. manage their various distribution releases.
I want the ability to make releases of Grok so that when someone writes
an application against it, it will continue to work, no matter what egg
releases follow. That's a community of interest, I guess? I just want
the technical ability to do so, and easily. If it's *not* convenient for
developers to maintain it, it won't get maintained well by the various
communities of interest. I think it's important to maintain these lists
of dependencies close to what they talk about, preferably inside the
As far as I know what is required is the ability for grok, in its
setup.py, to include a list of suggested pinned dependencies (besides,
and separate from, the normal dependencies). It should also be easy to
configure buildout to inspect this list. What is also required is a way
to easily create and maintain this list.
Now I think you're talking about ways to maintain, report and test such
lists below, but I want to solve my immediate problems first.
I also need this solved preferably today. It's the primary hurt of Grok
today. Everything else is peanuts.
Of course, if we don't need flexibility to allow application developers
to diverge from Grok's recommendation, this problem is solved today,
except for the bit to actually generate the list of dependencies. We can
simply hardcode them as dependencies in Grok's setup.py and tell
everybody who wants to use newer versions of eggs for whatever reasons
in their applications "too bad, wait for the new release".
Zope3-dev mailing list