On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:10 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood <david-sa...@jacaranda.org> wrote: >> 3. You have Twisted < 10.2 and Foolscap < 0.6.0 installed. ... > The situation shouldn't occur because 'setup.py build', by default, > should either: > > - have built a private copy of twisted < 10.2 (always used by bin/tahoe) > that won't be affected by upgrades of the installed version, or > - have built a private copy of foolscap 0.6.0 (always used by bin/tahoe).
Hrm. I can see how this could work, and could avoid the problem that could occur if someone were to subsequently upgrade their Twisted without upgrading their foolscap. However, I'm not sure that most users would be okay with this--it runs contrary to the principle of using the system-wide install of a library if possible. I'm not sure that if I were a user I would like the Tahoe-LAFS build to do this, and if I understand Greg Troxel's comment on this thread, it sounds like he might have reservations too. (Currently, the Tahoe-LAFS build scheme will automatically build a private copy of a library but will not do so if there is already a copy available which is of a sufficiently new version number.) In any case, I don't want to try to implement that (plus deciding if it is really a good idea according to users) for v1.8.2, but I *would* be happy to apply my patch before v1.8.2, which as far as I can tell would be strictly better than the current trunk, even if you prefer the "aggressive private copy" scheme above even more. So, can I get at least a +0 from David-Sarah on my patch for v1.8.2? And also from Brian, whose begrudging complaint^W^Wuseful bug report prompted my patch? Regards, Zooko _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
