Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:45:20AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: | People up to now have come up with systems like this that they thought were | automated enough. That's why we don't have a 2.9 release for windows.
What about we turn that around. How would you describe a 'automated enough' build environment? I suspect you consider:
python setup.py bdist_wininst
to be pretty close to that.
I think http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/ZopeWindows... Is pretty close. Note that this has a number os steps, but there are few and they are well documented, so I don't have to think.
How does it differ from:
make installer
It uses a real language.
once all dependencies are in place?
The process has to include getting al of the dependencies in place.
I agree that the procedure for building the current Windows installer, though documented (yes, it is documented), has more steps than required. One place where it could be streamlined is that it expects you to download the Python 2.3 Windows Installer and tarball manually and put them into a specific directory. That could certainly be done by the makefile.
As I said before, the fact that we don't have a windows release is proof that the process isn't automated enough. I also know for a fact that Tim did a *lot* of work to get the installer that he asked people to review. This might be inevitable, given the changes in Python, but I don't think it needs to be as bad as it is. And, as I said before, we shouldn't be inventing this ourselves if we can possibly avoid it. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org