Hi Tres, On 17 April 2010 00:12, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Martin Aspeli wrote: >>> Easy or not doesn't matter: he flat refuses. >> >> To play devil's advocate: Why don't we just fork PIL entirely? >> >> I appreciate that a 1.1.7 came out recently, but before that 1.1.6 >> lasted three years. I doubt it'd be hard to keep up with a fork. The >> advantage is that we could package it appropriately, release the new >> package on PYPI, and avoid all this confusion with names. >> >> We would need to come up with a new namespace (i.e. not PIL) and >> adjust our code in Plone and elsewhere to use this new namespace. But >> that's probably less work than having this debate every few months. > > You don't need to change the package name (the imports), just the > distribution nname (the dependencies). Jim's 'PILwoTk' package already > does this: > > http://download.zope.org/distribution/PILwoTk-1.1.6.4.tar.gz > > Maybe we should just renew the request to push PILwoTk to PyPI[1] and > update our dependencies. > > > [1] https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2007-October/029968.html
Except... if someone has PIL installed globally (e.g. via OS packages), won't these two conflict? And even then, we'd be left with the naming confusion and possibly a "which PIL do you have" type question that'll confuse newbies quite a lot. Martin _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
