lxml dependency in Zope 2.12.10 KGS
Hi, The Zope 2.12.10 KGS at http://download.zope.org/Zope2/index/2.12.10/versions.cfg specifies lxml = 2.2.6 There is no Python 2.6 Windows build for this egg, which means that this version cannot be installed on Windows under Python 2.6. Version 2.2.4 is the latest version with safe binary eggs for all platforms. What in Zope depends on lxml? Why did we pin to 2.2.6? Martin
Hi. On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The Zope 2.12.10 KGS at http://download.zope.org/Zope2/index/2.12.10/versions.cfg specifies
lxml = 2.2.6
There is no Python 2.6 Windows build for this egg, which means that this version cannot be installed on Windows under Python 2.6. Version 2.2.4 is the latest version with safe binary eggs for all platforms.
This is unfortunate, but really a problem for the lxml community and not us. So the lxml community cannot keep up with providing binary Windows eggs. This cannot force us to stick with old and buggy versions of the software.
What in Zope depends on lxml? Why did we pin to 2.2.6?
2.2.6 was the latest stable version available at the time of the release. 2.2.7 had known problems with newer libxml2 versions, but I see there's a 2.2.8 out now, which we should update to. I'm not sure about the actual dependency situation. I think it's more or less a convenience pin, as lxml is used very often in Zope related projects. We provide a known good version for it in the Zope Toolkit KGS for the same reason. Hanno
On 10 September 2010 14:04, Hanno Schlichting <hanno@hannosch.eu> wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com<optilude%2Blists@gmail.com>> wrote:
The Zope 2.12.10 KGS at http://download.zope.org/Zope2/index/2.12.10/versions.cfg specifies
lxml = 2.2.6
There is no Python 2.6 Windows build for this egg, which means that this version cannot be installed on Windows under Python 2.6. Version 2.2.4 is the latest version with safe binary eggs for all platforms.
This is unfortunate, but really a problem for the lxml community and not us. So the lxml community cannot keep up with providing binary Windows eggs. This cannot force us to stick with old and buggy versions of the software.
Well... the problem, apparently, is that libxml2 doesn't (or didn't?) have suitable Windows binaries, or so I'm told. I'm also not sure the bug fixes in 2.2.5 onwards are very important in a Zope context, since they seem to deal with Python 3 compatibility mainly.
What in Zope depends on lxml? Why did we pin to 2.2.6?
2.2.6 was the latest stable version available at the time of the release. 2.2.7 had known problems with newer libxml2 versions, but I see there's a 2.2.8 out now, which we should update to.
I'm not sure about the actual dependency situation. I think it's more or less a convenience pin, as lxml is used very often in Zope related projects. We provide a known good version for it in the Zope Toolkit KGS for the same reason.
This sounds wrong to me. If we *are* going to use a convenience pin, then surely the ability to install on the world's most-used operating system has to be part of the convenience. ;-) If we don't use it, we shouldn't pin it, IMHO. We found this problem because the Zope KGS was overriding another KGS where we had pinned lxml to 2.2.4. I don't think Zope has any business getting in the way of that. Martin
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
If we *are* going to use a convenience pin, then surely the ability to install on the world's most-used operating system has to be part of the convenience. ;-)
That's a lame argument. Windows is almost irrelevant for the market we are in - web server deployments. Our own community is barely able to keep up providing the most basic Windows support and ensuring tests pass. As long as we don't have more community volunteers actually caring about Windows support, I won't let it be an argument to penalize the rest of the community.
If we don't use it, we shouldn't pin it, IMHO. We found this problem because the Zope KGS was overriding another KGS where we had pinned lxml to 2.2.4. I don't think Zope has any business getting in the way of that.
The KGS is a base KGS you can use. Nobody forces you to stick to it. In fact for every single deployment of your own you will need to extend it. I don't see a problem with the few people using Windows and not installing compilers on their platforms to change one version pin. Hanno
On 10 September 2010 14:26, Hanno Schlichting <hanno@hannosch.eu> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com<optilude%2Blists@gmail.com>> wrote:
If we *are* going to use a convenience pin, then surely the ability to install on the world's most-used operating system has to be part of the convenience. ;-)
That's a lame argument. Windows is almost irrelevant for the market we are in - web server deployments.
Erm, you think so? Maybe we should do a poll on how many Zope / Plone developers use Windows on the desktop. Or look at how many people download the Windows installer. You need a dev environment, not just deployment, and a lot of people are on Windows.
Our own community is barely able to keep up providing the most basic Windows support and ensuring tests pass. As long as we don't have more community volunteers actually caring about Windows support, I won't let it be an argument to penalize the rest of the community.
When the software breaks, people go elsewhere. I didn't say Windows support was easy, or any fun. But we have to decide: do we care about people who have made (or are forced to make) different technology choices than us, or do we tell them their platform is unsupported?
If we don't use it, we shouldn't pin it, IMHO. We found this problem because the Zope KGS was overriding another KGS where we had pinned lxml to 2.2.4. I don't think Zope has any business getting in the way of that.
The KGS is a base KGS you can use. Nobody forces you to stick to it. In fact for every single deployment of your own you will need to extend it. I don't see a problem with the few people using Windows and not installing compilers on their platforms to change one version pin.
I think you're missing the point: - We shouldn't pin software we don't use. It may be well intentioned, but if we don't depend on it, we shouldn't take responsibility for it, or give the perception that we take that responsibility. - If we do depend on it, we need to make sure it works on the platforms we support. QA isn't something you do only when it's easy to do in your local dev sandbox. - If we suddenly no longer support Windows, we better have the guts to come out and say it, stop producing Windows eggs for Zope 2 stuff and explicitly state that people cannot and should not use Windows for Zope development. I hope that's not the case, though. ;) Martin
I believe Sidnei is working on creating lxml windows releases. Hopefully we'll have a Windows lxml 2.2.8 release in the next week or so. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.lxml.devel/5635 Laurence On 10 September 2010 15:01, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 September 2010 14:26, Hanno Schlichting <hanno@hannosch.eu> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
If we *are* going to use a convenience pin, then surely the ability to install on the world's most-used operating system has to be part of the convenience. ;-)
That's a lame argument. Windows is almost irrelevant for the market we are in - web server deployments.
Erm, you think so? Maybe we should do a poll on how many Zope / Plone developers use Windows on the desktop. Or look at how many people download the Windows installer. You need a dev environment, not just deployment, and a lot of people are on Windows.
Our own community is barely able to keep up providing the most basic Windows support and ensuring tests pass. As long as we don't have more community volunteers actually caring about Windows support, I won't let it be an argument to penalize the rest of the community.
When the software breaks, people go elsewhere. I didn't say Windows support was easy, or any fun. But we have to decide: do we care about people who have made (or are forced to make) different technology choices than us, or do we tell them their platform is unsupported?
If we don't use it, we shouldn't pin it, IMHO. We found this problem because the Zope KGS was overriding another KGS where we had pinned lxml to 2.2.4. I don't think Zope has any business getting in the way of that.
The KGS is a base KGS you can use. Nobody forces you to stick to it. In fact for every single deployment of your own you will need to extend it. I don't see a problem with the few people using Windows and not installing compilers on their platforms to change one version pin.
I think you're missing the point:
- We shouldn't pin software we don't use. It may be well intentioned, but if we don't depend on it, we shouldn't take responsibility for it, or give the perception that we take that responsibility.
- If we do depend on it, we need to make sure it works on the platforms we support. QA isn't something you do only when it's easy to do in your local dev sandbox.
- If we suddenly no longer support Windows, we better have the guts to come out and say it, stop producing Windows eggs for Zope 2 stuff and explicitly state that people cannot and should not use Windows for Zope development. I hope that's not the case, though. ;)
Martin
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Hello, Actually we have now the winbot. If it's not too hard to build the lxml windows egg, it could do that too. Friday, September 10, 2010, 5:12:18 PM, you wrote: LR> I believe Sidnei is working on creating lxml windows releases. LR> Hopefully we'll have a Windows lxml 2.2.8 release in the next week or LR> so. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.lxml.devel/5635 LR> Laurence LR> On 10 September 2010 15:01, Martin Aspeli LR> <optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 September 2010 14:26, Hanno Schlichting <hanno@hannosch.eu> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
If we *are* going to use a convenience pin, then surely the ability to install on the world's most-used operating system has to be part of the convenience. ;-)
That's a lame argument. Windows is almost irrelevant for the market we are in - web server deployments.
Erm, you think so? Maybe we should do a poll on how many Zope / Plone developers use Windows on the desktop. Or look at how many people download the Windows installer. You need a dev environment, not just deployment, and a lot of people are on Windows.
Our own community is barely able to keep up providing the most basic Windows support and ensuring tests pass. As long as we don't have more community volunteers actually caring about Windows support, I won't let it be an argument to penalize the rest of the community.
When the software breaks, people go elsewhere. I didn't say Windows support was easy, or any fun. But we have to decide: do we care about people who have made (or are forced to make) different technology choices than us, or do we tell them their platform is unsupported?
If we don't use it, we shouldn't pin it, IMHO. We found this problem because the Zope KGS was overriding another KGS where we had pinned lxml to 2.2.4. I don't think Zope has any business getting in the way of that.
The KGS is a base KGS you can use. Nobody forces you to stick to it. In fact for every single deployment of your own you will need to extend it. I don't see a problem with the few people using Windows and not installing compilers on their platforms to change one version pin.
I think you're missing the point:
- We shouldn't pin software we don't use. It may be well intentioned, but if we don't depend on it, we shouldn't take responsibility for it, or give the perception that we take that responsibility.
- If we do depend on it, we need to make sure it works on the platforms we support. QA isn't something you do only when it's easy to do in your local dev sandbox.
- If we suddenly no longer support Windows, we better have the guts to come out and say it, stop producing Windows eggs for Zope 2 stuff and explicitly state that people cannot and should not use Windows for Zope development. I hope that's not the case, though. ;)
Martin
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
LR> _______________________________________________ LR> Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org LR> https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev LR> ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** LR> (Related lists - LR> https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce LR> https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-- Best regards, Adam GROSZER mailto:agroszer@gmail.com -- Quote of the day: All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.
Hi there, On 09/10/2010 04:01 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
When the software breaks, people go elsewhere. I didn't say Windows support was easy, or any fun. But we have to decide: do we care about people who have made (or are forced to make) different technology choices than us, or do we tell them their platform is unsupported?
If you don't provide good Windows support and leave it to people who supposedly do care, you're setting yourself up for a self-fulfilling prophecy; the Windows people will not be there in the first place. And you're *lucky* as a project if you hear from people who have trouble installing it. Most people who have trouble installing your problem will just silently move on to something else. It makes sense to listen to these people very carefully when they are there, and even to anticipate what they might desire - if it's something as obvious as Windows support. It might also help to just go and read the lxml mailing list. As I see Laurence just said, Sidnei was talking about working on this very topic just 4 days ago... Regards, Martijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martin Aspeli wrote:
On 10 September 2010 14:26, Hanno Schlichting <hanno@hannosch.eu> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com<optilude%2Blists@gmail.com>> wrote:
If we *are* going to use a convenience pin, then surely the ability to install on the world's most-used operating system has to be part of the convenience. ;-) That's a lame argument. Windows is almost irrelevant for the market we are in - web server deployments.
Erm, you think so? Maybe we should do a poll on how many Zope / Plone developers use Windows on the desktop. Or look at how many people download the Windows installer. You need a dev environment, not just deployment, and a lot of people are on Windows.
Our own community is barely able to keep up providing the most basic Windows support and ensuring tests pass. As long as we don't have more community volunteers actually caring about Windows support, I won't let it be an argument to penalize the rest of the community.
When the software breaks, people go elsewhere. I didn't say Windows support was easy, or any fun. But we have to decide: do we care about people who have made (or are forced to make) different technology choices than us, or do we tell them their platform is unsupported?
Unless at least *some* of them help, we tell them "Windows is unsupported" (see below).
If we don't use it, we shouldn't pin it, IMHO. We found this problem because the Zope KGS was overriding another KGS where we had pinned lxml to 2.2.4. I don't think Zope has any business getting in the way of that. The KGS is a base KGS you can use. Nobody forces you to stick to it. In fact for every single deployment of your own you will need to extend it. I don't see a problem with the few people using Windows and not installing compilers on their platforms to change one version pin.
I think you're missing the point:
- We shouldn't pin software we don't use. It may be well intentioned, but if we don't depend on it, we shouldn't take responsibility for it, or give the perception that we take that responsibility.
I agree with this point.
- If we do depend on it, we need to make sure it works on the platforms we support. QA isn't something you do only when it's easy to do in your local dev sandbox.
See below.
- If we suddenly no longer support Windows, we better have the guts to come out and say it, stop producing Windows eggs for Zope 2 stuff and explicitly state that people cannot and should not use Windows for Zope development. I hope that's not the case, though. ;)
The fact is that nobody is supporting Windows *now*: the tests for Windows have been breaking on the buildbots "the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." Until folks who *do* develop with Zope on Windows step up to the plate to help at least diagnose those failures, the platform is de-facto unsupported. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkyKYiUACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ5XzQCfS+LiM7819znWKN5W4RVz7qqc 9esAoMctz8dGOAKRPcFe92FFHGsGHKeZ =MmfL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi Hanno
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] lxml dependency in Zope 2.12.10 KGS
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
If we *are* going to use a convenience pin, then surely the ability to install on the world's most-used operating system has to be part of the convenience. ;-)
That's a lame argument. Windows is almost irrelevant for the market we are in - web server deployments. Our own community is barely able to keep up providing the most basic Windows support and ensuring tests pass. As long as we don't have more community volunteers actually caring about Windows support, I won't let it be an argument to penalize the rest of the community.
Irrelevant?, probably what you are doing on your linux machine is irrelevant but for sure not our long year going on windows support. Why are you trying to solve your problems base on exclude others? That's not nice. Regards Roger Ineichen
Hi there, On 09/10/2010 03:04 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
This is unfortunate, but really a problem for the lxml community and not us. So the lxml community cannot keep up with providing binary Windows eggs. This cannot force us to stick with old and buggy versions of the software.
I might make sense to just email Sidnei. He's been responsible for the lxml windows eggs for years, and he's been doing some Zope egg work too. I.e. if you have a problem with lxml, it might make sense to just talk with the lxml people... Regards, Martijn
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
The Zope 2.12.10 KGS at http://download.zope.org/Zope2/index/2.12.10/versions.cfg specifies
lxml = 2.2.6
There is no Python 2.6 Windows build for this egg, which means that this version cannot be installed on Windows under Python 2.6. Version 2.2.4 is the latest version with safe binary eggs for all platforms.
What in Zope depends on lxml? Why did we pin to 2.2.6?
Eggs for lxml 2.2.8 have been uploaded for Python 2.6, 2.7 and 3.1, for 32 and 64 bits Windows. Enjoy. -- Sidnei
participants (8)
-
Adam GROSZER -
Hanno Schlichting -
Laurence Rowe -
Martijn Faassen -
Martin Aspeli -
Roger -
Sidnei da Silva -
Tres Seaver