Jeff Rush wrote:
I don't quite understand -- so there *are* root level elements specific to Zope that need to be copied into a Zope-over-ZEO environment? (hm, how do those elements get into a non-FileStorage Zope-over-ZEO environment?)
And do those elements interfere even a little in a non-Zope-just-ZEO environment? The only way I can imagine, other than simplistic name clashes would be if a full iteration of such a ZODB would cause unghosting of objects lacking Zope .pyc and raise unnecessary exceptions.
I ask because I'm trying to decide whether two ZEO RPMs are needed re ZEO-wo-Zope-2.0-1.i386.rpm and ZEO-w-Zope-2.0-1.i386.rpm, or just one. Somewhat similar to how the Zope RPMs have separate ZServer and PCGI flavor packages.
Data.fs.in contains nothing but the examples folder, if I remember correctly. Zope has no trouble starting without Data.fs.in. Just ignore it. ;-) Can we discuss the package separation, BTW? It doesn't currently feel optimal. There really shouldn't be a ZServer package, since ZServer is bound tightly with Zope2. I would want to see the following packages: ZODB3 ZEO2 Zope2 Zope2-pcgi The both the Zope2 and ZEO2 packages should depend on the ZODB3 package and the system python package (which must be Python 2.1.x, not Python 2.2.x). The Zope2-pcgi package should depend on the Zope2 package. Some suggested add-ons: Zope2-CMF Zope2-Plone Zope2-Squishdot Shane