Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-2-14 20:31 -0500:
> ...
>For all its flaws, setuptools fixes a lot of what is horribly broken in
>distutils: most of the flaws arise from the choice to stay
>pseudo-compatible with distutils, and reuse it, rather than starting
>from scratch.
But the dependancy handling i
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> If a package only depends on Acquisition, DateTime and zope.* packages
> it does no longer depend on "Zope2". I'd like to encourage people to
> look at their real dependency and be honest about those. Especially
> looking at things from the perspective of: "why does my pa
yuppie wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> In a package based world, if you specify a dependency on a package, you
>> can in my opinion only rely on the package contents itself to be there.
>> You cannot rely on its dependencies to stay around.
>
> I agree with you in general, but Zope2 is a spec
Am 15.02.2009 um 16:51 schrieb Tres Seaver:
I didn't get Hanno's e-mail and I can't find it in my spam filter
either.
> The point in Yuppies changes is that the already-specified
> dependencies
> *broke anyeay* with Zope 2.12, because of details of ordering inside
> setuptools. Specifing *a
Hi!
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> In a package based world, if you specify a dependency on a package, you
> can in my opinion only rely on the package contents itself to be there.
> You cannot rely on its dependencies to stay around.
>
> Zope2 the package is no different in this. Chances are that
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Charlie Clark wrote:
>>> Am 12.02.2009 um 14:45 schrieb yuppie:
install_requires=[
'setuptools',
'Zope2 >= 2.12.dev',
],
Is that the right way to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 14.02.2009 um 20:33 schrieb Tres Seaver:
>
>> Given that package's job in life, I strongly doubt that we need to
>> worry
>> about anybody using it outside of a Zope2 app. In fact, I think it
>> might be a good idea just t
Am 14.02.2009 um 20:33 schrieb Tres Seaver:
> Given that package's job in life, I strongly doubt that we need to
> worry
> about anybody using it outside of a Zope2 app. In fact, I think it
> might be a good idea just to fold the package back into Zope2 (I don't
> recall why it ever shipped se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 12.02.2009 um 14:45 schrieb yuppie:
>
>> install_requires=[
>> 'setuptools',
>> 'Zope2 >= 2.12.dev',
>> ],
>>
>> Is that the right way to resolve that issue? Could it cause any
>> trouble
>> if I
Charlie Clark wrote at 2009-2-14 16:22 +0100:
> ...
>I'm not that familiar with Buildout but I would have thought that any
>direct import dependencies should be listed - and zope.location
>doesn't seem to be (neither are zope.event or zope.site for that
>matter). OTOH the condition >= seems t
Am 12.02.2009 um 14:45 schrieb yuppie:
> install_requires=[
> 'setuptools',
> 'Zope2 >= 2.12.dev',
> ],
>
> Is that the right way to resolve that issue? Could it cause any
> trouble
> if I would check in that change?
Only for someone wishing to use it totally outsi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> I have some trouble using five.localsitemanager in a buildout with Zope2
> 2.12.dev. This is the error I get:
>
>Error: There is a version conflict.
>We already have: zope.location 3.5.3
>but Zope2 2.12.dev req
Hi!
I have some trouble using five.localsitemanager in a buildout with Zope2
2.12.dev. This is the error I get:
Error: There is a version conflict.
We already have: zope.location 3.5.3
but Zope2 2.12.dev requires 'zope.location==3.5.2'.
The setup.py of five.localsitemanager specifies
13 matches
Mail list logo
