Re: [Zope-dev] Why third_party/docutils?
Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 16:01 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 15:34 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 20:30 Uhr +0100 "Stefan H. Holek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *sound of me protesting noisily* Let me remind you of the Pope's decree: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-November/024073.html I have not seen a proposal so far how to solve this issue that works with a complete Docutils package and without sitecustomize.py and I don't know about a better solution. Having Docutils in sane state from the maintenance prospective is much more important for me than leaving it as it was. As I said in one of my responses to this thread, I see no problem that this extra directory solves. Could you please explain what problem you think an extra directory will solve? Stefan complained about the sitecustomize.py file and the additional paths injected inside the file. Moving docutils as a whole to lib/python would not solve the problem with similar adjustments to sys.path. AFAICT, the problem is that you made a change that requires lots of scripts to be modified and become slightly more complicated. This is not a huge deal if there's a good reason for it, but I can't figure out what that reason could be. See below. You're still not getting the point. Z2 shipped and Z3 ships with a *stripped* down version of Docutils where only the "docutils" subfolder is used. Now the *whole* package is included which makes it necessary to adjust the paths. Please explain why including all of docutils requires adjusting the paths. We include all of docutils in Zope 3 and don't adjust the paths. We *did* adjust docutils slightly. Is the version in Zope 3 less complete than the one you want to include in Z2? If not, I suggest copying that one, as it works for Zope 3. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Why third_party/docutils?
--On Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 7:36 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please explain why including all of docutils requires adjusting the paths. I did that already in an earlier mail last week. We include all of docutils in Zope 3 and don't adjust the paths. We *did* adjust docutils slightly. No, Zope 3 ships only with the 'docutils' subdirectory of the Docutils package. -aj ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Is Zope.2.7.4 feature frozen ?
Andreas Jung wrote: --On Freitag, 17. September 2004 11:58 Uhr -0300 Rodrigo Dias Arruda Senra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However, I was lead to believe that 2.7.x was not feature frozen due to the "Zope 2.7.4 beta 1 - Features added ..." section in http://zope.org/Products/Zope/2.7.4b2/CHANGES.txt These are improvements of existing functionalies but not new features. I consider "improvements of existing functionality" to be a new feature. Third-dot releases should be only for bug fixes. Sometimes we compromise on this. I realize that the lack of progress on 2.8 creates pent up demand for new features in earlier releases. I'm not sure what to do about that. I know I won't be able to spend time on 2.8 until after the new year, at least. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Why third_party/docutils?
Andreas Jung wrote: --On Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 7:36 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please explain why including all of docutils requires adjusting the paths. I did that already in an earlier mail last week. You may think you did. We include all of docutils in Zope 3 and don't adjust the paths. We *did* adjust docutils slightly. No, Zope 3 ships only with the 'docutils' subdirectory of the Docutils package. What is it lacking? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: cvs for Zope 2.7.X
Dennis Allison wrote: I am a bit confused by the current state of the CVS repository. Where is the current CVS for Zope 2.7.3+? On the Zope-2_7-branch branch in the CVS repository. > What's the purpose of the markers saying ATTENTION_THIS_AREA_IS_NOW_CLOSED.txt/1.1 Did you read the contents of this file? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Is Zope.2.7.4 feature frozen ?
--On Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 9:48 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: These are improvements of existing functionalies but not new features. I consider "improvements of existing functionality" to be a new feature. Third-dot releases should be only for bug fixes. Then I call them "new mini features" which are reasonably manageable through a reasonable release management (I hope we have one :-)). Sometimes we compromise on this. I realize that the lack of progress on 2.8 creates pent up demand for new features in earlier releases. I'm not sure what to do about that. I know I won't be able to spend time on 2.8 until after the new year, at least. I am not in the position to tell people what to do but an ongoing Z2 development is vital for Zope and its community. A standstill is like going a step back. This is especially true as long as Zope 3 has the infrastructure that we need to build systems we can build with Zope 2. Andreas ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Why third_party/docutils?
[Jim Fulton] >>> We include all of docutils in Zope 3 and don't adjust the paths. >>> We *did*adjust docutils slightly. [Andreas Jung] >> No, Zope 3 ships only with the 'docutils' subdirectory of the >> Docutils package. [Jim] > What is it lacking? I suppose it's the 'docs', 'extras', 'licenses' and 'tools' subdirectories, although I see that the 'tools' subdirectory checked in on Zope-2_7-branch was stripped of its GPL'ed pieces first. Andreas, does Zope 2 *use* any of the stuff in the non-docutils subdirectories? Jim, while I personally don't care much, Zope3's repackaging of docutils doesn't meet license requirements to retain the original licenses in derivative works. Zope2's does, because it includes docutil's whole 'licenses' subdirectory (except for the GPL). ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Why third_party/docutils?
Tim Peters wrote: ... Jim, while I personally don't care much, Zope3's repackaging of docutils doesn't meet license requirements to retain the original licenses in derivative works. Zope2's does, because it includes docutil's whole 'licenses' subdirectory (except for the GPL). At least as of the time that I added docutils to Zope 3, it had no licenses. Nevertheless, I include a mention of the docutils non-license in: http://svn.zope.org/Zope3/trunk/LICENSES.txt?view=markup Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Why third_party/docutils?
[Tim Peters] >> Jim, while I personally don't care much, Zope3's repackaging of >> docutils doesn't meet license requirements to retain the original >> licenses in derivative works. Zope2's does, because it includes >> docutil's whole 'licenses' subdirectory (except for the GPL). [Jim Fulton] > At least as of the time that I added docutils to Zope 3, it had no > licenses. Nevertheless, I include a mention of the docutils non-license > in: > > http://svn.zope.org/Zope3/trunk/LICENSES.txt?view=markup The current docutils package includes 4 licenses. You mention roman.py in the above, and docutils is in part a derivative of that, so Zope3 is too, and the Python 2.1.1 license roman.py was released under requires retaining the license in derivative works. Including a link to the license doesn't meet that requirement, although I strongly doubt roman.py's author would object. It's exciting to live dangerously . ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Why third_party/docutils?
--On Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 11:08 Uhr -0500 Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Jim Fulton] We include all of docutils in Zope 3 and don't adjust the paths. We *did*adjust docutils slightly. [Andreas Jung] No, Zope 3 ships only with the 'docutils' subdirectory of the Docutils package. [Jim] What is it lacking? I suppose it's the 'docs', 'extras', 'licenses' and 'tools' subdirectories, although I see that the 'tools' subdirectory checked in on Zope-2_7-branch was stripped of its GPL'ed pieces first. Andreas, does Zope 2 *use* any of the stuff in the non-docutils subdirectories? Jim, while I personally don't care much, Zope3's repackaging of docutils doesn't meet license requirements to retain the original licenses in derivative works. Zope2's does, because it includes docutil's whole 'licenses' subdirectory (except for the GPL). I think we should stop the discussion at this point and follow Tres suggestion: - import Docutils somewhere into the CVS/SVN - link the docutils/docutils subfolder to lib/python in the CVS - move roman.py into parsers/rest as Jim did for Zope 3 I have no idea how we should with this issue in the SVN. Maybe svn:externals will do the job either to the Docutils version within Z3 or a shared Docutils shared somewhere within the SVN. Andreas ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Why third_party/docutils?
Andreas Jung wrote: --On Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 11:08 Uhr -0500 Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Jim Fulton] We include all of docutils in Zope 3 and don't adjust the paths. We *did*adjust docutils slightly. [Andreas Jung] No, Zope 3 ships only with the 'docutils' subdirectory of the Docutils package. [Jim] What is it lacking? I suppose it's the 'docs', 'extras', 'licenses' and 'tools' subdirectories, although I see that the 'tools' subdirectory checked in on Zope-2_7-branch was stripped of its GPL'ed pieces first. Andreas, does Zope 2 *use* any of the stuff in the non-docutils subdirectories? Jim, while I personally don't care much, Zope3's repackaging of docutils doesn't meet license requirements to retain the original licenses in derivative works. Zope2's does, because it includes docutil's whole 'licenses' subdirectory (except for the GPL). I think we should stop the discussion at this point Well, we do need to decide how to handle the license files. I suggest we create a licenses dir in the doctest package. (In Zope 3, I include ICU's license file with the icu data files. > and follow Tres suggestion: - import Docutils somewhere into the CVS/SVN - link the docutils/docutils subfolder to lib/python in the CVS - move roman.py into parsers/rest as Jim did for Zope 3 I have no idea how we should with this issue in the SVN. Maybe svn:externals will do the job either to the Docutils version within Z3 or a shared Docutils shared somewhere within the SVN. I prefer to use svn cp. For now, just svn cp the docutils directory from the zope 3 tree. Later (or now, if you want to bother), we should create a vendor-import area in the repository and create a vendor import for docutils. Then copy from there. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
