Tim Peters wrote:
Log message for revision 41291: Pain, pain, and more pain.
The build-the-installer process now completes, and running the installer creates something that may or may not be a working Zope. It starts fine as a Windows Service, and at least "looks like a Zope" ;-)
All hail Tim Peters! :)
Nothing in the build-the-Windows-installer process here uses anything in the root of the inst/ directory anymore. Instead the WinBuilders zope.mk builds Zope all by itself, using the Python created by python.mk. Everything these used to use in the root of the inst/ directory was so out of whack with current reality that there was no point even trying to reverse-engineer what it thought it was doing.
It seems that 'inst' holds nothing of value anymore except 'Makefile.in' and 'WinBuilders'. I propose moving those two items to the root and remove 'inst'. Philipp
[Philipp von Weitershausen]
It seems that 'inst' holds nothing of value anymore except 'Makefile.in' and 'WinBuilders'.
WRT Windows, that's certainly true on my Windows-installer branch. I don't know whether any of it is still useful on Linux. You seem to think Makefile.in is still useful, but if that's true then I expect inst/configure.py is also still useful (it looks like configure.py is the intended way to create an actual makefile from the Makefile.in template). One thing for sure is that it will be helpful to get rid of as many decoys as possible; e.g., I burned several hours staring at the stuff in inst/ wondering how to make it work again, then digging in to why it existed at all, and finally concluding that everything it ever did is of no use on Windows anymore ;-).
I propose moving those two items to the root and remove 'inst'.
I'd rather just remove the decoys. The process of building a Windows installer needs/creates three not-checked-in directories that are siblings of WinBuilders, and it's nicer to have those hiding under inst/ than cluttering the root of a checkout. The Windows stuff will have no use for anything other than WinBuilders/, so if Makefile.in's Linux purpose would be better served by moving that elsewhere, that would be fine.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:13:17PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: | I'd rather just remove the decoys. The process of building a Windows | installer needs/creates three not-checked-in directories that are | siblings of WinBuilders, and it's nicer to have those hiding under | inst/ than cluttering the root of a checkout. | | The Windows stuff will have no use for anything other than | WinBuilders/, so if Makefile.in's Linux purpose would be better served | by moving that elsewhere, that would be fine. I think there's a Makefile.win too, that is used by inst/configure.py on Windows. (I know because use it). -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems, LLC. http://enfoldsystems.com
[Sidnei da Silva]
I think there's a Makefile.win too, that is used by inst/configure.py on Windows. (I know because use it).
There is a Makefile.win.in, but the build-the-Windows-installer process no longer uses it on my branch -- the branch doesn't use anything in the root of inst/ anymore, except for the inst/WinBuilders/ subdirectory. (Note that I haven't removed inst/Makefile.win.in on the branch, because I promised to change only stuff under inst/WinBuilders/ on that branch.)
Tim Peters wrote:
It seems that 'inst' holds nothing of value anymore except 'Makefile.in' and 'WinBuilders'.
WRT Windows, that's certainly true on my Windows-installer branch. I don't know whether any of it is still useful on Linux. You seem to think Makefile.in is still useful, but if that's true then I expect inst/configure.py is also still useful (it looks like configure.py is the intended way to create an actual makefile from the Makefile.in template).
Ah, true.
One thing for sure is that it will be helpful to get rid of as many decoys as possible;
+1
I propose moving those two items to the root and remove 'inst'.
I'd rather just remove the decoys. The process of building a Windows installer needs/creates three not-checked-in directories that are siblings of WinBuilders, and it's nicer to have those hiding under inst/ than cluttering the root of a checkout.
The Windows stuff will have no use for anything other than WinBuilders/, so if Makefile.in's Linux purpose would be better served by moving that elsewhere, that would be fine.
I don't think it would better or worse be served elsewhere, it's just that you see Makefile and wonder where it comes from. Looking in 'inst' isn't obvious at first sight. The problem I have with configure.py and Makefile.in in 'inst' is that they're not about installation anymore (which is what 'inst' stands for). They're about an in-place build. 'WinBuilders' OTOH *is* about building an installer. Therefore, just to reduce confusion, I would move Makefile.in and configure.py to the root (and remove the decoys). I'd also suggest we rename 'inst' to 'installer' so that it won't be confused with "instance". Then again, this is just me and my weird sense of aesthetics ;). Philipp
[Philipp von Weitershausen]
... Therefore, just to reduce confusion, I would move Makefile.in and configure.py to the root (and remove the decoys). I'd also suggest we rename 'inst' to 'installer' so that it won't be confused with "instance". Then again, this is just me and my weird sense of aesthetics ;).
That all sounds good to me, assuming people still find a Makefile to be useful (I've been on Windows for a loooong time now ;-)).
participants (3)
-
Philipp von Weitershausen -
Sidnei da Silva -
Tim Peters