On Friday 22 April 2005 11:37, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > "It is in our opinion that Zope 3.1 is more than ready for production
> > use, which is why we decided to drop the X for experimental. We will
> > also continue to work on making the transition between Zope 2 and Zope 3
> > as smooth as possible.
On 4/22/05, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> don't think zpkgtools wants to manage dependencies on the whole system,
> yet that's what users need.
Yes. It should be possible for zpkg to assemble the requirements
metadata from components so that it all gets reported to distutils (if
dis
Jim Fulton wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> I'm sure Fred is doing excellent work, but I'm having trouble seeing why
>> we need zpkgtools. Is it not sufficient to just "python setup.py
>> install" all of Zope 3?
>
> I hope so. What zpkgtools does is to:
>
> - Build our setup.py script (which
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
"It is in our opinion that Zope 3.1 is more than ready for production
use, which is why we decided to drop the X for experimental. We will
also continue to work on making the transition between Zope 2 and Zope 3
as smooth as possible. As a first step, Zope 2.8 includes
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
> I think of zpkgtools as a prototype for extensions that are necessary
> for distutils.
Is it the Zope project's job to extend distutils, though? I mean,
developing something new is nice, but there's a lot of a new stuff on
our plate already, isn't there?
Overall
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Thanks for the positive feedback. Fred Drake worked very hard
on this. One thing we did right was to leverage distutils
ability to build binary releases. I'm also encouraged by work done
at the recent PyCon sprints that someday we'll
On Thursday 21 April 2005 23:16, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
> > It sounds like you are using Zope3 as libraries, which is the
> > traditional "sweet spot" for distutis; zpkgutils is really aimed at the
> > kind of usage where distutils sucks^H^H^H^H^Hfails to meet expectations,
> >
Hi Stephan
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Stephan Richter
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 2:22 PM
> To: zope3-dev@zope.org
> Cc: Chris Withers; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Shane Hathaway
> Subject: Re: [Zope3-dev] Building standalone ZPT from Zope 3
> using zpkgtools
>
On Thursday 21 April 2005 18:34, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> I'm sure Fred is doing excellent work, but I'm having trouble seeing why
> we need zpkgtools. Is it not sufficient to just "python setup.py
> install" all of Zope 3? I've been doing that with Zope 3 Subversion
> checkouts and Twisted, even
Shane Hathaway wrote:
[snip]
I'm sure Fred is doing excellent work, but I'm having trouble seeing why
we need zpkgtools. Is it not sufficient to just "python setup.py
install" all of Zope 3? I've been doing that with Zope 3 Subversion
checkouts and Twisted, even though I actually use less than 10
Hello everyone,
I am pretty much done getting the release structure setup, i.e. get it running
and deciding what will be in and what will be out. I have a hard time to
decide about the following:
zope.app.recorder -- Allows you to create functional doc tests by simply using
a special HTTP serv
On Friday 22 April 2005 03:33, Christian Theune wrote:
> So, unfortunately, "Zope 3.1 CC" or "Certified Zope 3.1.1"" might become
> reality. Eventually it also will only be "Zope 3.1.5 (certified)".
> Problem is: I have to state an (estimated) identifier within the
> certification documents to iden
Hi,
* Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050420 17:37]:
>
> I was hoping to stay out of this discussion, but ...
>
> 1. There will be many more releases of Zope 2, including
> 2-digit releases like 2.10, 2.11, etc.
>
> 2. The X in Zope 3X means that there is not yet support for
> Zope 2 tr
13 matches
Mail list logo
