Seeking brave souls to try Zope 2.9 Windows installer
Most of the last two days I've been whacking on Zope 2.9 to build a "Zope 2 style" Windows installer that bundles Python 2.4.2, and cooperates with the new zpkgtools-created tarball layout. The build-the-Windows-installer code got simpler as a result, but ... This work is being done on branch: //svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/branches/tim-2.9-windows-installer which was branched off the 2.9 tag. All changes on the branch are under inst/WinBuilders/, so the idea is that when "this works", it can be merged into the 2.9 tag as well as the trunk (the stuff under WinBuilders/ isn't used for anything except building a Windows installer, and on the 2.9 tag the WinBuilders/ part is wholly broken). It's in a state now where it's not obviously broken to my eyes, but I have little experience running Zope2 so my eyes aren't reliable here. People on Windows who want to try it, knowing in advance that it may be broken in various ways, can download an experimental installer: Zope-Experimental-2.9.0-win32.exe from my member page: http://www.zope.org/Members/tim_one Please report problems to zope-dev, not to me directly. After tomorrow, I'll be on vacation for 2 weeks, and won't be terribly responsive :-) Note that I'm copying Sidnei in the hope that he can be persuaded to take up the slack. If there are problems, they're likely to be in the layout of the code: missing pieces, wrong directories, stuff like that. The 2.9 tarball's install.py installed everything it was told to install, and if there are problems there they're in Zope 2.9, not in the chain of code building the Windows installer. Nevertheless, the Windows installer could be taught to patch over them. And, of course, the build-the-installer dance may introduce new errors of its own. I hope it works for someone ;-)
Way to go Tim! You beat me to it. I was supposed to look at this soon but got back from vacation just this tuesday. I will make sure your installer gets testing and try to fix any eventual issues. Thank you very much! On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:25:35PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: | Most of the last two days I've been whacking on Zope 2.9 to build a | "Zope 2 style" Windows installer that bundles Python 2.4.2, and | cooperates with the new zpkgtools-created tarball layout. The | build-the-Windows-installer code got simpler as a result, but ... | | This work is being done on branch: | | //svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/branches/tim-2.9-windows-installer | | which was branched off the 2.9 tag. All changes on the branch are | under inst/WinBuilders/, so the idea is that when "this works", it can | be merged into the 2.9 tag as well as the trunk (the stuff under | WinBuilders/ isn't used for anything except building a Windows | installer, and on the 2.9 tag the WinBuilders/ part is wholly broken). | | It's in a state now where it's not obviously broken to my eyes, but I | have little experience running Zope2 so my eyes aren't reliable here. | People on Windows who want to try it, knowing in advance that it may | be broken in various ways, can download an experimental installer: | | Zope-Experimental-2.9.0-win32.exe | | from my member page: | | http://www.zope.org/Members/tim_one | | Please report problems to zope-dev, not to me directly. After | tomorrow, I'll be on vacation for 2 weeks, and won't be terribly | responsive :-) | | Note that I'm copying Sidnei in the hope that he can be persuaded to | take up the slack. If there are problems, they're likely to be in the | layout of the code: missing pieces, wrong directories, stuff like | that. The 2.9 tarball's install.py installed everything it was told | to install, and if there are problems there they're in Zope 2.9, not | in the chain of code building the Windows installer. Nevertheless, | the Windows installer could be taught to patch over them. And, of | course, the build-the-installer dance may introduce new errors of its | own. | | I hope it works for someone ;-) -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems, LLC. http://enfoldsystems.com
[Sidnei da Silva]
Way to go Tim! You beat me to it. I was supposed to look at this soon but got back from vacation just this tuesday. I will make sure your installer gets testing and try to fix any eventual issues.
Excellent! This may actually work ;-) While I'll be on vacation the next two weeks, I'll check email each day, and will be happy to give minor <wink> help with mysteries. The build-the-installer code got substantially simpler, but I think it's hard to jump in cold and understand it (in part because the makefile-maze infrastructure is better suited to more complicated jobs than this one has become). WinBuilders/README.txt is the best place to start, and I tried to leave it telling only truths on the branch.
On 1/13/06, Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote:
While I'll be on vacation the next two weeks, I'll check email each day, and will be happy to give minor <wink> help with mysteries.
Only one real "bug": No user is created (even though you type in name and password). And of course zopectl doesn't work, so zopectl adduser is out of the question. Luckily creating an inituser still works! :-) Also, installing the shell files runzope and zopectl is kinda pointless. Minor, I know, but it means you have to typetab twice when tab expanding to run runzope in from a commandline. ;-) When you run the instance creation you get a commandline, but you have no idea where the current directory is, so if you just type in a relative path, you don't know where the directory was created. (Turns out it's in C:\Documents And Settings\<username>\ ) That's it so far! Great job! -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
[Lennart Regebro]
Only one real "bug": No user is created (even though you type in name and password).
Sorry, I'm not following this. The installer never offers to create a user (although it does ask you to supply a password for the fixed "admin" user). So you must be talking about something else, but I don't know what. For example, when logged in to the installed Zope as "admin", I had no problems creating new users from the acl_users thingie.
And of course zopectl doesn't work, so zopectl adduser is out of the question. Luckily creating an inituser still works! :-)
Also, installing the shell files runzope and zopectl is kinda pointless.
I'm sure the Zope 2.8 (etc) Windows installers did the same here. This is controlled by the content of the top-level (in a Zope checkout) skel/ directory: C:\Code\Zope2.9>dir/b skel\bin runzope.bat.in runzope.in zopectl.in zopeservice.py.in So (exactly) those 4 things (without the ".in" suffix) get created in an instance home's bin/ directory, regardless of platform. Someone may wish to change Zope's utilities/mkzopeinstance.py to do different things on different platforms, but that's out of scope for this little project (which makes changes only under Zope's inst/WinBuilders/: the Windows installer-builder code).
Minor, I know, but it means you have to typetab twice when tab expanding to run runzope in from a commandline. ;-)
? Assuming you're running a native Windows NT+ shell (cmd.exe), you set tab as your file completion character, and you're using NTFS as the filesystem (so that tab completion suggests possibilities in alphabetical order), then the sequence r TAB in an instance's bin directory completes to runzope and that's what you want. That doesn't actually run the file named "runzope", it actually runs the file named "runzope.bat" on Windows. I'm starting to suspect you don't normally use Windows, Lennart ;-) I certainly agree there's no _reason_ to create the "runzope" file to begin with on Windows (except perhaps to keep mkzopeinstance.py simple), but it doesn't actually get in the way of using tab completion.
When you run the instance creation you get a commandline, but you have no idea where the current directory is, so if you just type in a relative path, you don't know where the directory was created. (Turns out it's in C:\Documents And Settings\<username>\ )
I'm sure all earlier Zope Windows installers created stuff that did the same here too. If that isn't wanted, then Zope's utilities/mkzopeinstance.py is again the thing that would need to be changed.
That's it so far! Great job!
Thank you for trying it! I'm just relieved it didn't melt your hard drive ;-)
On 1/15/06, Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I'm not following this. The installer never offers to create a user (although it does ask you to supply a password for the fixed "admin" user). So you must be talking about something else, but I don't know what. For example, when logged in to the installed Zope as "admin", I had no problems creating new users from the acl_users thingie.
Is this "admin" user the emergency user? Because I couldn't log in, and I tried to create a new manager with inituser, and it worked, and there is no admin user in my acl_users... Still can't log in with admin, maybe I mistyped the password twice... :-)
And of course zopectl doesn't work, so zopectl adduser is out of the question. Luckily creating an inituser still works! :-)
Also, installing the shell files runzope and zopectl is kinda pointless.
I'm sure the Zope 2.8 (etc) Windows installers did the same here.
Me too. And in fact the linux install installs runzope.bat. Still pretty pointless.
r TAB
in an instance's bin directory completes to
runzope
and that's what you want. That doesn't actually run the file named "runzope", it actually runs the file named "runzope.bat" on Windows.
Oh, right. No, I *want* runzope.bat, but yeah, just runzope works fine too, because the shell will look for exe, bat and com files when you do that. :-) If you delete the runzope file, and then do the same, you see it expands to "runzope.bat".
I'm sure all earlier Zope Windows installers created stuff that did the same here too. If that isn't wanted, then Zope's utilities/mkzopeinstance.py is again the thing that would need to be changed.
It should probably print the current directory. That's pointless on UNIX, because then you know what the current directory is, but when clicking on an icon, you don't.
Thank you for trying it! I'm just relieved it didn't melt your hard drive ;-)
No, it works fine (except for the weirdness about the admin creation. Maybe I'll try again and make sure I donn't mistype this time.) -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
participants (3)
-
Lennart Regebro -
Sidnei da Silva -
Tim Peters