Jeff Shell a écrit : > On Dec 6, 2007 8:08 AM, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jim Fulton wrote: >>> None of the above. What is the harm of the dependencies? >> One of the options included in "none of the above" is to not use >> buildout at all. Forget that the project in question uses buildout (or >> setuptools) and integrate it into your project however you would have >> before those tools existed (svn:externals, make a checkout, whatever). > > That's such a disappointing answer. It's one that I've gotten a couple > of times when I've said "hey, I'm trying to move to a release based > system using distutils and setuptools and I'm floundering." And I have > made our own system. And it's.... I don't know. I'd like to spend more > time solving customer problems than figuring out how to install our > solutions to customer problems. We're in desperate need of reliable, > repeatable distributions. DESPERATE. > > How did it come to be that the Python tools are so bad at this? > Setuptools is horrible when it comes to doing local > (instance-home-ish) installations, requiring virtualenv or whatever. > And I've had little success getting those to work. Maybe they just > break my way of thinking about how Python does and should work. > Whatever. Buildout looks like it tries to address many of those > issues, but again I find myself fighting against my natural instincts. > Where's some end user documentation? The doc-test is difficult to read > and speaks in generics, not about day-to-day problems. The Recipes are > even worse, leaving one to clamor through the web to get back to the > cheeseshop page and then face the same difficult to read doc-test kind > of 'help'. Which I wouldn't mind reading, if I could easily read that > help locally, like a man page or using Python's 'help()' system. > ``buildout help zc.recipe.egg``, ``buildout help zc.recipe.cmmi``, > whatever. > > That I'm still frustrated by these tools all this time later is > disappointing. And yes, it's easier to write your own. That's the > Python way. Don't understand [zope, pylons, cherrypy, quixote, > skunkweb]? Write your own web framework! Python does make it easy to > do that because it's such a fantastic language. But I think that > attitude, in turn, gives us worse tools, because everyone scratches > their own itch and moves on, leaving everything incomplete. It seems > almost like it's easier to write your own tool than to read whatever > cryptic documentation exists for another. > > I've gotten Buildout to work on some small components. It's great - > check out the source, run buildout, wait, wait, wait, and then have a > nice little self contained testing and development environment. But > I've never been able to get a full Zope 3 "Application" up and running > in that environment. > > There's just no time and the tools are just too hard to learn under > the circumstances my little company is operating in right now. > Buildout *seems* like it could fix some big problems that have been > hitting us hard in recent weeks. But I still can't wrap my head around > how. >
For this specific problem, I came down to write a little buildout recipe (thanks to Jim lights), more info at http://www.jfroche.be/blogging/archive/2007/12/10/avoid-fetching-zope-3-libraries-in-buildout and http://pypi.python.org/pypi/affinitic.recipe.fakezope2eggs/0.1 Regards, Jeff _______________________________________________ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users