Dieter writes:
Erik Stephens writes:
Given the recent problems we're having with needing certain build options set and specific versions for Python, it would be nice if we could rely on a binary Zope distribution and not have to second guess that we are screwing up somewhere in the build process. Am I missing the boat somewhere?
If I were Zope.com (or Zope.org), I would be quite angry about this request...
What do you/your company pay that you request such a level of service? I.e. a binary distribution specifically tailored to your needs?
Whoa, Dieter, don't get your panties in a bunch! All I was trying to get at was that maybe we were f'ing up the build some how and was HOPING there would be a way to rely on the experts for that step. I was just trying to get some details about the Zope binary distribution, which I must've been a complete idiot about. Please forgive me. This kind of crap doesn't belong on a mail list, but since you want to incite a flame on it, I'll be more than happy to oblige. You got a beef with me, then email me directly and spare the rest of us with this waste of bandwidth. Is it my fault that Zope people are overly sensitive right now? Am I spreading misinformation? I thought I was just asking questions. I didn't know that was such a crime. -Erik
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:04:44PM -0700, Erik Stephens wrote:
Dieter writes:
Erik Stephens writes:
Given the recent problems we're having with needing certain build options set and specific versions for Python, it would be nice if we could rely on a binary Zope distribution and not have to second guess that we are screwing up somewhere in the build process. Am I missing the boat somewhere?
If I were Zope.com (or Zope.org), I would be quite angry about this request...
What do you/your company pay that you request such a level of service? I.e. a binary distribution specifically tailored to your needs?
Whoa, Dieter, don't get your panties in a bunch! All I was trying to get at was that maybe we were f'ing up the build some how and was HOPING there would be a way to rely on the experts for that step. I was just trying to get some details about the Zope binary distribution, which I must've been a complete idiot about. Please forgive me.
This kind of crap doesn't belong on a mail list, but since you want to incite a flame on it, I'll be more than happy to oblige. You got a beef with me, then email me directly and spare the rest of us with this waste of bandwidth.
Is it my fault that Zope people are overly sensitive right now? Am I spreading misinformation? I thought I was just asking questions. I didn't know that was such a crime.
Now, Dieter is one of the most willing to help people I have ever met, and he does not work for Zope, or anything like that. He was making, perhaps a bit overstrongly, the point that unless you are willing to pay zope.com to provide a custom binary for you; you have no right to make a rather sarcastic "am I missing the boat somewhere?" remark. Dieter was telling you that you are indeed missing the boat. The boat is called sweat equity. Zope.com has done a great service in allowing the rest of us to use their work. They are under no obligation to customize things for you. (On the other hand, they want zope to spread, so neither do they want to make things more difficult for you.) Had you asked politely, you would never have gotten such a remark. Now, on to another aspect. Personally, I think that the Zope.org sponsored binary distributions are a bad thing. If I were doing it, I would offer it only for the Microsoft Windows bunch; and this is not out of respect to market or anything like that. I would offer a binary distribution to them only because it is more work for them to get and install python correctly. Why are binary distibutions bad on non-Microsoft targets? Essentially because you ahve to know something extra and adapt every addon C-module in special ways. The binary ditributions use a non-standard python path, non-standard library paths, etc. I have seen much confusion from people who are trying to install database adaptors on the binary distributions. Jim Penny
-Erik
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
For many of the more common unixes, like *BSD and Linux, many products do come as 'packages'. Easily installable binary distributions. Very nice. Python is widespread enough for you to be able to find a binary distribution for many platforms. That said, I often end up recompiling many of the binary distributions anyway, because they don't work. On our OpenBSD installation the python 1.5.2 package didn't like *py files with CRLF line endings in it! How that happened, I don't now, but since most of our files have CRLF, it didn't work. I had to remove that package install the source and compile it anyway... Zope in itself is to totally dead easy to install on unix that a "binary" distribution probably would be more painful that the current one.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 10:46:23PM +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On our OpenBSD installation the python 1.5.2 package didn't like *py files with CRLF line endings in it! How that happened, I don't now
This is normal behviour for Python on all unicies. Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ phd@phd.pp.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
From: "Oleg Broytmann" <phd@phd.pp.ru>
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 10:46:23PM +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On our OpenBSD installation the python 1.5.2 package didn't like *py files with CRLF line endings in it! How that happened, I don't now
This is normal behviour for Python on all unicies.
In that case every other time I have used python (on DOS or Unix) has been abnormal. Which I seriously doubt. It would also be bad default behaviour. Which I also seriously doubt. Remember, this is python we are talking about. Python is rarely bad.
Erik Stephens wrote:
Is it my fault that Zope people are overly sensitive right now? Am I spreading misinformation? I thought I was just asking questions. I didn't know that was such a crime.
-Erik
For my part, I don't think we're overly sensitive. What we do though is try to fit "lowest common denominator" when we do releases. In fact, our binary distributions of Zope for linux include a Python that is linked against a very old glibc -- it's actually built on a RedHat 5.2 system for compatibility. If you try to use that in production, it will be *painfully* slow. For example, being the speed freak that I am, I build a custom python 2.1.2 for my own use using gcc 3.1 (thats right, bleeding edge from CVS) because it can make me a python that's about 14-18% faster without me having to go license the Intel C compiler. You do have to throw more options at gcc and massage it though, so that build represents a large portion of risk. What we want to do is lower risk, and that usually means distributing things in a fairly plain fashion and leave people to build better solutions for themselves. However, we can easily cause things to spin out of control when we offer advice or suggestions based on partial data or hearsay. Sometimes this is useful -- but sometimes that rather conditional advice gets picked up as gospel and used out of context. Here's another request we get a lot: distribute a python with large file support enabled. We'd love to do this -- but that means having to either have some kind of unified installer which can auto-sense if your platform can support it, or permuting our builds so that we now have 2 times as many combinations as before. Our position is that we want to provide people with a single choice that works as reasonably as we can make it in all circumstances. You as an end user still have the opportunity to package your own solution -- that's why we're open source. -- Matt Kromer Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com/
Erik Stephens writes:
Dieter writes:
Erik Stephens writes:
Given the recent problems we're having with needing certain build options set and specific versions for Python, it would be nice if we could rely on a binary Zope distribution and not have to second guess that we are screwing up somewhere in the build process. Am I missing the boat somewhere?
If I were Zope.com (or Zope.org), I would be quite angry about this request...
What do you/your company pay that you request such a level of service? I.e. a binary distribution specifically tailored to your needs?
... You got a beef with me, then email me directly and spare the rest of us with this waste of bandwidth. I am not interested to get a beef with you :-)
I just had the impression you were *request*ing a binary distribution *specially* tailored to *your* needs. If that had been the case, then it would have been a wrong attitude towards Zope and the Zope community: One gets Zope and lots of useful products somehow like a gift -- without the need to pay for it or other obligations. However, the company and persons that made these gifts are not obliged to make further gifts on request. A right attitude would be (in my view) to check whether what one needs it already available, and if not, make it and contribute it to the community. This way, the community get stronger in a fast pace... Let me make some personal notes towards an excuse: I skim hundreds of Zope related messages per day and reply to about a dozen. It's part of my contribution towards the Zope community, a thank-you for these great tools I got and use. Of course, there are other essential things in my life. Therefore, I must limit the time for my Zope contributions. I only have a few minutes per message, even if I respond. As a consequence, I sometimes miss the point or get it wrong or say wrong things. If this was the case in my above cited post, I am sorry about this. Dieter
participants (6)
-
Dieter Maurer -
Erik Stephens -
Jim Penny -
Lennart Regebro -
Matthew T. Kromer -
Oleg Broytmann