RE: [Zope-dev] Zope Binary Release Changes for Zope 2.6
In theory (and as a Debian user), I like the idea of support for as distro-neutral of a linux distribution as possible; on the other hand, supporting RedHat 7.2 is a must for Zope accessability to new developers (since there are a lot of RedHat 7.2 systems out there). Is Python 2.1 under woody really compiled with LFS support? That would be great, but still likely means that your best bet is to build Zope from source, or just use the Zope packages in Debian Main. Anyway, Debian 3.0 uses glibc 2.2 (I'm not sure if this is a big deal???). A thought: rather than require yet another Zope binary distribution to be packaged for Debian by Zope Corp (esp. Since Zope packages are fairly decent in Debian), the Zope.org download page might want to contain a link to: http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=zope&searchon =names&subword=1&version=all&release=all for Debian users, just like it mentions the contributed RPMs. Sean -----Original Message----- From: Nagarjuna G. [mailto:nagarjun@hbcse.tifr.res.in] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:39 PM To: zope-dev@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Binary Release Changes for Zope 2.6 On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:57:14AM -0400, Matthew T. Kromer wrote:
Zope is currently released in three binary formats:
Windows - i386
Solaris 2.6 - SPARC
Linux RH 5.2 - i386
All binary releases come with python 2.1.3, built without large file support.
We are proposing to change the binary distributions to newer releases, at least on the Solaris and Linux platforms.
The new Solaris binary would be Solaris 2.8.
The new Linux binary would be RedHat 7.2 based (i.e. glibc 2.1).
It is very likely that the supplied Pythons would be built with large file support *enabled* for these platform, unless some unforseen compatibility issue arose.
Is it difficult to make the GNU/Linux binary distro independent? All the binaries that I have been using from the Zope site work to the best of my knowledge on distros. Why mention Redhat specailly? I work on Debian Woody 3.0, and the python 2.1 is compiled with large file system support. Nagarjuna _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
I don't see why the fuss. Compiling Python/Zope against RedHat 7.2 doesn't keep it from running under Debian. Even though Debian 3.0 runs glibc 2.2, a glibc2.1 binary should be able to run without problems. Specially since there isn't any C++ code in Zope, which is usually the major source of incompatibilities between different library versions. Glibc is reasonably upward compatible AFAIK. Mentioning RedHat 7.2 as the building platform is just a short way of saying that the Zope binary will expect to find libc version X, libm version Y, libpthread version Z, etc, etc. If you have these or better versions of your basic libraries, you don't have to worry what distro you're running. Cheers, Leo On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 11:55, sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
In theory (and as a Debian user), I like the idea of support for as distro-neutral of a linux distribution as possible; on the other hand, supporting RedHat 7.2 is a must for Zope accessability to new developers (since there are a lot of RedHat 7.2 systems out there). Is Python 2.1 under woody really compiled with LFS support? That would be great, but still likely means that your best bet is to build Zope from source, or just use the Zope packages in Debian Main.
Anyway, Debian 3.0 uses glibc 2.2 (I'm not sure if this is a big deal???).
A thought: rather than require yet another Zope binary distribution to be packaged for Debian by Zope Corp (esp. Since Zope packages are fairly decent in Debian), the Zope.org download page might want to contain a link to: http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=zope&searchon =names&subword=1&version=all&release=all for Debian users, just like it mentions the contributed RPMs.
Sean
-----Original Message----- From: Nagarjuna G. [mailto:nagarjun@hbcse.tifr.res.in] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:39 PM To: zope-dev@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Binary Release Changes for Zope 2.6
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:57:14AM -0400, Matthew T. Kromer wrote:
Zope is currently released in three binary formats:
Windows - i386
Solaris 2.6 - SPARC
Linux RH 5.2 - i386
All binary releases come with python 2.1.3, built without large file support.
We are proposing to change the binary distributions to newer releases, at least on the Solaris and Linux platforms.
The new Solaris binary would be Solaris 2.8.
The new Linux binary would be RedHat 7.2 based (i.e. glibc 2.1).
It is very likely that the supplied Pythons would be built with large file support *enabled* for these platform, unless some unforseen compatibility issue arose.
Is it difficult to make the GNU/Linux binary distro independent? All the binaries that I have been using from the Zope site work to the best of my knowledge on distros. Why mention Redhat specailly? I work on Debian Woody 3.0, and the python 2.1 is compiled with large file system support.
Nagarjuna
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-- Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:21:22PM -0300, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
I don't see why the fuss. Compiling Python/Zope against RedHat 7.2 doesn't keep it from running under Debian. Even though Debian 3.0 runs glibc 2.2, a glibc2.1 binary should be able to run without problems. Specially since there isn't any C++ code in Zope, which is usually the major source of incompatibilities between different library versions. Glibc is reasonably upward compatible AFAIK.
Mentioning RedHat 7.2 as the building platform is just a short way of saying that the Zope binary will expect to find libc version X, libm version Y, libpthread version Z, etc, etc. If you have these or better versions of your basic libraries, you don't have to worry what distro you're running.
Do we know of any failures of zope in other platforms? If not why mention only RH 7.2? That is the point. In fact we will be gaining greater ground and support if we mentain that Zope is distro independent, infact it is OS independent. Dependencies certainly have to be met for any application, not merely with Zope. Nagarjuna
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 11:55, sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
In theory (and as a Debian user), I like the idea of support for as distro-neutral of a linux distribution as possible; on the other hand, supporting RedHat 7.2 is a must for Zope accessability to new developers (since there are a lot of RedHat 7.2 systems out there). Is Python 2.1 under woody really compiled with LFS support? That would be great, but still likely means that your best bet is to build Zope from source, or just use the Zope packages in Debian Main.
Anyway, Debian 3.0 uses glibc 2.2 (I'm not sure if this is a big deal???).
A thought: rather than require yet another Zope binary distribution to be packaged for Debian by Zope Corp (esp. Since Zope packages are fairly decent in Debian), the Zope.org download page might want to contain a link to: http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=zope&searchon =names&subword=1&version=all&release=all for Debian users, just like it mentions the contributed RPMs.
Sean
From: Nagarjuna G. [mailto:nagarjun@hbcse.tifr.res.in] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:39 PM To: zope-dev@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Binary Release Changes for Zope 2.6
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:57:14AM -0400, Matthew T. Kromer wrote:
Zope is currently released in three binary formats:
Windows - i386
Solaris 2.6 - SPARC
Linux RH 5.2 - i386
All binary releases come with python 2.1.3, built without large file support.
We are proposing to change the binary distributions to newer releases, at least on the Solaris and Linux platforms.
The new Solaris binary would be Solaris 2.8.
The new Linux binary would be RedHat 7.2 based (i.e. glibc 2.1).
It is very likely that the supplied Pythons would be built with large file support *enabled* for these platform, unless some unforseen compatibility issue arose.
Is it difficult to make the GNU/Linux binary distro independent? All the binaries that I have been using from the Zope site work to the best of my knowledge on distros. Why mention Redhat specailly? I work on Debian Woody 3.0, and the python 2.1 is compiled with large file system support.
Nagarjuna
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ nagarjun@hbcse.tifr.res.in www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/gn/ Key fingerprint = C1E2 1B8C 8E98 A697 68B7 ADAC E956 6D4B DE90 BF01
Nagarjuna G. wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:21:22PM -0300, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
I don't see why the fuss. Compiling Python/Zope against RedHat 7.2 doesn't keep it from running under Debian. Even though Debian 3.0 runs glibc 2.2, a glibc2.1 binary should be able to run without problems. Specially since there isn't any C++ code in Zope, which is usually the major source of incompatibilities between different library versions. Glibc is reasonably upward compatible AFAIK.
Mentioning RedHat 7.2 as the building platform is just a short way of saying that the Zope binary will expect to find libc version X, libm version Y, libpthread version Z, etc, etc. If you have these or better versions of your basic libraries, you don't have to worry what distro you're running.
Do we know of any failures of zope in other platforms? If not why mention only RH 7.2? That is the point. In fact we will be gaining greater ground and support if we mentain that Zope is distro independent, infact it is OS independent. Dependencies certainly have to be met for any application, not merely with Zope.
Nagarjuna
The target binary will be built on RedHat 7.2 is what that means. It is likely to be compatible with most recent distributions. Leonardo had it correctly, if I say "Red Hat 7.2" it implies a particular mix of libraries -- since we do not package in RPM format, the actual build distribution is relevant only for knowledge about its libraries. While I am supportive of people who want to insure binary compatibility with other distributions, I'm not intersted in diverting into a question of "whos distribution is best/most appropriate/has the most fabulous license" etc. As always, the source distribution will work anywhere you have Python and a C compiler to build the extensions. -- Matt Kromer Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com/
participants (4)
-
Leonardo Rochael Almeida -
Matthew T. Kromer -
Nagarjuna G. -
sean.upton＠uniontrib.com