-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Feb 16, 2009, at 13:29 , yuppie wrote: > Jens Vagelpohl wrote: >> I'm wondering, ist it necessary to declare a dependency where we know >> that it is a required dependency for another dependency we already >> declare? Specifically, if CMFDefault is declared as dependency, is it >> necessary to also declare CMFCore because we know CMFDefault already >> declares it? > > No. But as Hanno pointed out yesterday, it is good practice to specify > all *direct* dependencies: > http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2009-February/034582.html > > The Zope2 package is an exception because it represents the Zope 2 > platform and ships with a KGS. So direct dependencies on packages > Zope2 > also depends on should not be specified if Zope2 is specified as > dependency. > > I thought that was consensus, but if you don't agree I'm fine with > further discussions. No, don't get me wrong, I did not signal any disagreement or agreement ;-) I was just wondering if there was a new set of "best practices" that I missed. I did not draw the line between the other discussion and your checkins at all, it did not strike me as related. Does anyone else have a specific opinion for this case, disregarding the five.localsitemanager discussion? jens -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkmZYK4ACgkQRAx5nvEhZLLq8wCeJEfA4DXKzauYg4Cl9qK2X83v WpkAoLX7504n+vjQI9ntqxgKhr1tfBHX =phKB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
