[Zope-dev] Moving forward with Zope 2.7

[Chris McDonough]

On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 20:42, THoffman@indtech.wa.gov.au wrote:
> Could we get the Install and Configuration proposal cleaned up, with so
> many comments it's not clear what the actual proposal proposes to
> deliver now. 

Yes when possible.  I agree that it is a bit of a mess.

In the meantime, I think this list summarizes the adjusted goals well:

    * configure; make; make install installation
    * control script for starting/stopping/debugging zope
    * config file for all options including logging,
      servers, and databases.
    * real "effective user" support (logfiles, database files, etc. 
      dont get written as root if you start as root).
    * better support for instance home/software home split
    * better support for Windows services
    * RPM-building support.
    * where possible, the banishment of environment variables
      as configuration.

All of these things save for the last are more or less complete on the
"chrism-install-branch" of the Zope trunk.  The major missing piece is
the fleshing out of the interaction between the configuration system
(ZConfig) and Zope itself.  It works currently but it needs to be
improved and canonized to everyone's liking.  Since ZConfig will also
used by other ZC software (ZEO, ZRS), there's a bit of back and forth
that needs to be done to get everybody to agree on a way to do it.  Once
that is worked out, and the proposal is cleaned up, I think we can just
merge.

> Also parts of it's problem statement are just plain wrong.
> I currently have many (read every version of Zope including Alpha's and
> Betas since 2.4.1b1) installed on the same box, and I have 18 instances
> of which at least 8 are running concurrently on our dev box, currently
> using at least 2 different versions of Zope (2.5.1 and 2.6.0). (Some of
> the non running instances if I started them up would be on 2.4.3 etc..

I think this part of the problem statement (#4) is not within the scope
of the deliverables required by the proposal anymore (which of course
lines up with your first comment ;-)

- C