[Zope-CMF] CMF 3.1 doesn't install on zope 2.6.1

[sean.upton@uniontrib.com]

-1

CMF should be packaged like it is now, with a folder containing the release
with an appropriate version number in the folder name.  On platforms with
symlinks, it makes non-destructive, quick, undo-able upgrades easier the way
it is packaged now:

i.e.:
	cd lib/Python/Products
	tar xvfz CMF-1.3.1.tgz
	ln -s CMF-1.3.1/CMFCore .
	ln -s CMF-1.3.1/CMFCalendar .
	ln -s CMF-1.3.1/CMFCTopic .
	ln -s CMF-1.3.1/CMFDefault .
	#restart Zope
	#a few months later:
	cd lib/Python/Products
	tar xvfz CMF-1.4.tgz
	rm CMFCore CMFCalendar CMFTopic CMFDefault
	ln -s CMF-1.4/CMFCore .
	ln -s CMF-1.4/CMFCalendar .
	ln -s CMF-1.4/CMFCTopic .
	ln -s CMF-1.4/CMFDefault .
	#restart Zope

Reverting back is simply a matter of changing symlinks and restarting Zope
in the 'Doh! this upgrade broke something' scenario.  Under the status quo,
Windows users would still have to settle for some dragging-and-dropping in
Windows Explorer.

Sean


-----Original Message-----
From: Andy McKay [mailto:andy@agmweb.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:39 AM
To: Andreas Jung
Cc: Josef Meile; zope-cmf@zope.org
Subject: Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF 3.1 doesn't install on zope 2.6.1


>> I think that doing it would avoid this question, which is frequently 
>> asked
>> by lazy users who don't read the docs.
> 
> There is no reason to complain if there is documentation that explains 
> what do and how to install
> a package.

Yes but being well documented and people actually reading it are two
different things. Really I see no reason for the tarball to be done the
way it is. To me its a simple change that impacts virtually nothing, but
will stop about half a dozen people asking a week ;)
-- 
   Andy McKay



_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests