On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Dirk Datzert wrote: > > > I will be honest here. I don't care a lot about how the debian files > > are packaged, or where. But I do not want to see two sets of debs with > > differing layouts. > > Not only talking about debs distro layouts. There should be one install > instruction for all linux distros, which takes care about FHS. This > should be official published under zope.org. On this base an RPM can > build. > > If installation places changes from 2.4.4/2.5.1 to 2.6 than it simple > changes. A notification mail on RPM install can tell that to the user.
Yes, but... user migration is not the real issue. Packager migration is more important. I mean, look, a debconf question, or a post-install question could ask whether the user wanted his location maintained, and build a symbolic link, or it could move the data. The SuSe model might work very well for SuSe, but it will not work well for Debian. Debian has a strong tradition of in-place upgrades, and more importantly, requires a lot of internal coordination; there are more than 30 packages dependent on the current debian zope layout, and probably more than 20 maintainers. Changing the location that packages are installed in (currently /usr/lib/zope/lib/python/Products) would probably require 30 days or so. Again, I see no advantage, even if file location is identical, to there being more than one repository of .debs for zope. And I would think that zope.org would agree. Debian has a very substantial set of mirrors over which to distribute the load. Zope.org would have to pay for much bandwidth on days that new .debs came into being (much deb pulling is automated, so it is much more spiky than .rpm pulling). Moreover, having more than one such repository will simply create problems for end users. Either we will have a repeat of the ximian debacle, where it was almost impossible to get new, upgraded packages from the canonical repositories (and this included security upgrades!), or we will see that most users are not running the zope.org packages anyway, since their revision numbers will differ (and probably be lower). And frankly, doing debian packaging right is a PITA, and doing it almost right is pretty pointless. I have no opposition to an attempt to standardize the location of ZOPE_HOME and LOCATION_HOME. (I also don't see it as that big a deal, people to whom this matters, who are presumed capable enough to be trusted with the root password, should be capable of reading /usr/share/doc/zope/README.Debian.gz.) But, if zope.org wishes to maintain a set of .deb packages, then zope.org really, really, needs to become the official debian packager (and hence the suggestion that Chris become an official debian developer); or they really, really need to stay out of it, and simply point debian users elsewhere. Now, if I wanted to have a debian related wish, it would be that there be a robust ZOPE_HOME2 into which one puts local products and products not installed via .debs (probably /usr/local/lib/zope/python/Products, although the python may not be needed). Jim Penny > > Distro maintainer like SuSE doing that this way. > > Regards, > Dirk > > _______________________________________________ > Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev > ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** > (Related lists - > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) > _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
