Possibly dumb questions, but what the hell. For a binary Zope distribution, is it built with or without PCGI? We use FastCGI, so we build without PCGI. I'll assume that binary distributions are built with PCGI. Is there a way to get a binary Zope distribution from D.C. without the PCGI? 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? Thanks, Erik
erik, whether zope is built with pcgi or not does not matter. if you don't give zope specific startup instructions to use it it won't. jens On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 01:24 , Erik Stephens wrote:
Possibly dumb questions, but what the hell. For a binary Zope distribution, is it built with or without PCGI? We use FastCGI, so we build without PCGI. I'll assume that binary distributions are built with PCGI. Is there a way to get a binary Zope distribution from D.C. without the PCGI?
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?
Thanks, Erik
On Thursday 31 January 2002 11:59 am, you wrote:
erik,
whether zope is built with pcgi or not does not matter. if you don't give zope specific startup instructions to use it it won't.
Sounds good, but a couple of more question then. What is the benefit of building without PCGI then? Less compilation and dependencies? Any runtime performance benefits? Thanks for the response, Erik
if you compare wo_pcgi.py and w_pcgi.py you can see that all w_pcgi does is execcute the inst/build_pcgi.py and inst/make_resource.py scripts and then run wo_pcgi.py. inst/build_pcgi.py changes into the pcgi directory and runs configure and make to build the pcgi wrapper. inst/make_resource.py creates the Zope.cgi file. so the difference is a little time savings. jens On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 03:59 , Erik Stephens wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2002 11:59 am, you wrote:
erik,
whether zope is built with pcgi or not does not matter. if you don't give zope specific startup instructions to use it it won't.
Sounds good, but a couple of more question then. What is the benefit of building without PCGI then? Less compilation and dependencies? Any runtime performance benefits?
Thanks for the response, 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 )
On Thursday 31 January 2002 02:22 pm, you wrote:
if you compare wo_pcgi.py and w_pcgi.py you can see that all w_pcgi does is execcute the inst/build_pcgi.py and inst/make_resource.py scripts and then run wo_pcgi.py.
inst/build_pcgi.py changes into the pcgi directory and runs configure and make to build the pcgi wrapper. inst/make_resource.py creates the Zope.cgi file.
so the difference is a little time savings.
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but having the two build options seems to just unnecessarily confuse the situation. If one provides a superset of the other, but will cost some extra build time [1], then why offer the wo_pcgi.py build option? Maybe it was fully documented somewhere, but I would want to minimize the amount of docs I'd have to read in order to get up and running. I never bothered looking at the source, like I probably should've, but I've been assuming there existed some core differences between the two builds. I'm glad my assumption was wrong though. :) [1] I'm assuming that the amount of time to build the PCGI wrapper is negligible, but you know what happens when you assume. Thanks again, Erik
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? Dieter
participants (3)
-
Dieter Maurer -
Erik Stephens -
Jens Vagelpohl