[Zope3-dev] Re: Packaging pre-proposal/notes

[Chris McDonough]

On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 10:17, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> So, I'll to run something like 'make' after every friggin' change of a 
> .py file? I think it's bad enough having to restart Z3 all the time. 
> Hey, we're all using Python for it's being an interpreted language. 
> Please let's not have compile-like processes.

This is why I suggested the symlink thing, FWIW.  You won't need to run
make after any change if packages are symlinked from source into the
install tree.  Windows people?  They lose.

> A little. But I hate it :) Some kind of one-to-many-package mangling 
> will confuse more than help and it's another point of possible failure, 
> another thing to maintain etc. setup.py, as has been discussed lately, 
> is hard to maintain, since it's monolithic, and don't even get me 
> started on test.py! :)

How is one setup script per package monolithic?

> I think we're currently solving this kind of problem with repo-links, 
> e.g. with ZConfig and the like. Don't see why we wouldn't want to 
> continue this.

Repolinks aside, the dogma of requring the CVS repository layout be the
same as the install layout prevents a lot of packaging flexibility;
namely, it prevents any possibility of having pure container directories
like I suggested in my last email.

Meanwhile, the cost of delegating more installation smarts to each
package is small if you're going to de-monolithicize the main setup.py
by adding smarts to each package anyway, as Jim is suggesting.

- C