[Grok-dev] Re: Making an egg bundle for Grok

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Maurits van Rees wrote:
> Hi fellow grokkers!
> 
> Out of the Grokkerdam sprint z3c.recipe.eggbasket was born.  This lets
> you quickstart a grok project by first installing the grok egg and its
> dependencies from a tar ball without relying on a zillion cheese shops
> and sourceforges, like this:
> 
> [eggbasket]
> recipe = z3c.recipe.eggbasket
> eggs = grok
> url = http://grok.zope.org/releaseinfo/grok-eggs-0.12.tgz

Just to make sure, this recipe will do nothing if whatever you specified 
in 'eggs' was already installed, right?

> It has a buildout.cfg for testing.  The important part is this, which
> you could add to any random buildout (say the grok one):
> 
> [releasemaker]
> recipe = zc.recipe.egg
> eggs = z3c.recipe.eggbasket
> arguments =
>     egg = 'grok',
>     versionfile = 'http://grok.zope.org/releaseinfo/grok-0.12.cfg'
> 
> This is slightly awkward: note the comma and the quotes that are
> needed in the arguments.  But it does the trick.

Right. This is a trick that works when you have regular console_scripts 
that you want to pimp up with arguments from buildout.cfg. However, this 
script that you're providing (currently called releasemaker) really only 
works within a buildout anyway, right? So I suggest writing a small 
recipe that installs the script, that way the parameter configuration 
could be a bit nicer:

[bundlemaker]
recipe = z3c.recipe.eggbasket#bundlemaker
eggs = grok
versionfile = http://grok.zope.org/releaseinfo/grok-0.12.cfg

The 'bundlemaker' recipe would be a very simple recipe along the lines 
of zc.recipe.testrunner, for instance, which also installs an executable 
with extra parameters from buildout.cfg.

> I would say: just try it out.  For testing it is faster to use for
> example 'martian' instead of 'grok'.  That will give you a tar ball
> with just the martian and zope.interface eggs.

Yeah, nice!

> So: there is working code and there is lots of room for improvement
> (don't get me started).  Now would be a good time to hop in with
> contributions, cheer me on or point me in a different direction.
> 
> Testing on Windows would be cool too, both of the script and the
> recipe. :)

I tested at least the releasemaker script on Windows. It works nicely, 
though the tarball contains binary eggs, which is what we want, I 
suppose. I just think that the tarball's name should contain the 'win32' 
moniker somewhere to distinguish it from the pure-source tarball.

> Naming suggestions for the script are also welcome: releasemaker,
> releaser, eggbasket, create_egg_bundle, shipit, etc.

I think releasemaker is a bit besides the point. It doesn't really make 
a release, does it. It makes a bundle of a bunch of released stuff, so 
bundlemaker or make-eggbasket or whatever seems like a better name.