Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:45:20AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| People up to now have come up with systems like this that they thought were
| automated enough. That's why we don't have a 2.9 release for windows.
What about we turn that around. How would you describe a 'automated
enough' build environment? I suspect you consider:
python setup.py bdist_wininst
to be pretty close to that.
I think
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/ZopeWindowsRelease
Is pretty close. Note that this has a number os steps, but there are few
and they are well documented, so I don't have to think.
> How does it differ from:
make installer
It uses a real language.
once all dependencies are in place?
The process has to include getting al of the dependencies in place.
I agree that the procedure for building the current Windows installer,
though documented (yes, it is documented), has more steps than
required. One place where it could be streamlined is that it expects
you to download the Python 2.3 Windows Installer and tarball manually
and put them into a specific directory. That could certainly be done
by the makefile.
As I said before, the fact that we don't have a windows release
is proof that the process isn't automated enough. I also know
for a fact that Tim did a *lot* of work to get the installer that
he asked people to review. This might be inevitable, given the
changes in Python, but I don't think it needs to be as bad as it is.
And, as I said before, we shouldn't be inventing this ourselves
if we can possibly avoid it.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
