Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] GenericSetup and CMF dependencies
Previously Charlie Clark wrote: Am 21.04.2008 um 08:59 schrieb Wichert Akkerman: The eggified CMF already required setuptools to make sure the Products namespace is setup correctly. Considering that entire python community appears to be moving to egg, Zope2 is going to be distributed in egg form (at least there is a strong move in that direction) I think a dependency on setuptools is not problematic. -1 Lemmings and cliff spring to mind when you mention inevitability. I think there is a significant difference between supporting eggs and requiring them. I never said 'require eggs'. I said 'requiring setuptools is not problematic'. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] GenericSetup and CMF dependencies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 yuppie wrote: Hi Hanno! Hanno Schlichting wrote: yuppie wrote: I guess CMF 2.2 will be released before Zope2 or Python requires setuptools, so at least for now it is a GenericSetup/CMF dependency. http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/ still exists and needs to be maintained (or deleted). Who ever added the setuptools dependency should update INSTALL.txt and friends (if we agree to keep CMF trunk and the dependency). I don't have a strong opinion on CMF/trunk. I don't use it, so I don't have a particular interest in keeping it around. Maybe it should be replaced by a buildout, but for now I would keep it. - -1 to managing dependencies in buildout-specific files: they belong in setup.py. For me the dependencies noted in setup.py are the canonical place and I would delete the DEPENDENCIES.txt files from all packages on trunk and instead make sure the ones in setup.py are current. If we can agree on that, I can do the work and make sure INSTALL.txt is current as well. I'm still not 100% convinced that making CMF 2.2 depend on setuptools is necessary. But given that you volunteer to do all the related work, I'm fine with it. Given that setuptools is the only mechanism which *enforces* dependencies, spelling them in setup.py is not likely to cause any difficulties. I'm averse to packaging future versions of CMF in any form other than a setuptools-using sdist (no binaries, just the tarballs as generated by setuptools). Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIDf8M+gerLs4ltQ4RAkjDAJ9FyZIueiZ6XNprX5wO5/XbN0Vx5ACeNys3 7K8x+E4dgL0oa8cBRO72QKo= =GYIm -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] newstyle content creation
Charlie Clark wrote: Am 22.04.2008 um 14:27 schrieb yuppie: Today I checked in a formlib based add view for File objects[3]. There is a new Add File action available if you use the Experimental CMFDefault Browser Views extension profile. Any feedback is welcome. Not sure if this makes Bug #161664[4] obsolete. This is excellent news! I have been struggling considerably with invokeFactory() on a recent project. Does this mean we can develop add_forms analogue to Zope 3? Yes. Similar code as used for creating File objects should work for any content. But ContentAddFormBase is new and not very well tested, so you might find some bugs. Note that the add view is registered for the container interface, not IAdding. zope.formlib still uses IAdding by default, but z3c.form doesn't. And do I get the goodies just with an svn update? Yes. Missing is the integration in the CMFDefault add menu. For now the new 'add_file' action is used for showing the link to 'addFile.html'. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] GenericSetup and CMF dependencies
Tres Seaver wrote: yuppie wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: yuppie wrote: I guess CMF 2.2 will be released before Zope2 or Python requires setuptools, so at least for now it is a GenericSetup/CMF dependency. http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/ still exists and needs to be maintained (or deleted). Who ever added the setuptools dependency should update INSTALL.txt and friends (if we agree to keep CMF trunk and the dependency). I don't have a strong opinion on CMF/trunk. I don't use it, so I don't have a particular interest in keeping it around. Maybe it should be replaced by a buildout, but for now I would keep it. - -1 to managing dependencies in buildout-specific files: they belong in setup.py. I guess you did get me wrong. I was talking about the future of http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/, not about dependency management. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
