[Grok-dev] grokproject pins setuptools, zc.buildout et.al.

[Roger Erens]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:32, Maurits van Rees <m.van.rees at zestsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Roger Erens, on 2009-11-10:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 19:17, Maurits van Rees
>><m.van.rees at zestsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>> Sebastien Douche, on 2009-11-06:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 16:30, Maurits van Rees
>>>><m.van.rees at zestsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Minimum versions in setup.py is fine, exact versions not.
>>>>
>>>> It could be great to use buildout to pin minimum versions and let
>>>> setup.py empty.
>>>
>>> -1.  That would just mean you allow a user to pick a version that you
>>> know is not going to work.
>>
>> I don't understand; can you elaborate? I mean, someone who can edit
>> buildout.cfg is also able to edit setup.py. Or isn't that the issue?
>
> If the setup.py is in your own package, say a package you wrote for a
> client: sure.
>
> But here the point is that for example the setup.py in the official
> grok egg should *not* pin exact versions (and for the record: it does
> not currently).  If we had for example said in the setup.py
> "install_requires=['setuptools==0.6c9']" then someone who wanted to
> use setuptools 0.6c11 would be *forced* to edit the setup.py of their
> local copy of the grok egg and that is not good.
>
> Is that clearer?

Yes, thanks. I had never given the setup.pys in eggs any thought. But this is just about the point w.r.t. the exact versions vs. the minimum versions in setup.py; how about the point w.r.t. empty vs. non-empty setup.py?

Cheers,

Roger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 271 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/grok-dev/attachments/20091110/ce258862/attachment.bin