[Zope3-dev] Packages

[Jeffrey P Shell]

On 6/13/02 11:33 AM, "Paul Everitt" <paul@zope.com> wrote:

> I'm not lobbying for the above, I'm just lobbying for an official list
> similar to the above.  However, I *am* lobbying for the next part.
> 
> Zope 2 has some conventions in which you can inspect a tgz and deduce
> some facts from it:

It also has some bad conventions - like some products being tarred up with
the lib/python/Products prefix, making installation into an INSTANCE_HOME
uglier.  Other products don't.  And then there's whole issue of
when/where/how to use 'Shared'.  So even the conventions are loose.
Especially when it comes to spelling/dealing with dependencies.

>  a. "Product" name, version, and platform all come from the filename.
> 
>  b. Version comes from version.txt
> 
>  c. Other adhoc standards like install, license, readme,
>  help, interfaces, etc.


> For this data in Zope 3, I suppose we have the following choices:
> 
>  a. None of it matters, it's just a convention.

-1.  I think a big part of component architectures is distribution,
deployment, and management of deployed modules.

>  b. Use the same as Zope 2.

-1.  It's too informal, regardless of the efforts that have been made to
make it better.

>  c. Use distutils as is.

0

>  d. Use distutils plus PEP 241:
> 
>    http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0241.html

+1

>  e. Get data from a zcml file/namespace.

I'm going to keep my opinion to myself on this one.  :)

I like the 'distutils + PEP 241' idea the best, at least when it comes to
packaging and installing <blank>s.  Other deployment/configuration
considerations specific to Zope could be done in ZCML, but I think that
'distutils' and friends should be used as much as possible.

-- 
Jeffrey P Shell 
www.cuemedia.com