[Zope-dev] Why third_party/docutils?

[Andreas Jung]

--On Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 11:08 Uhr -0500 Tim Peters 
<tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:

> [Jim Fulton]
>>>> We include all of docutils in Zope 3 and don't adjust the paths.
>>>> We *did*adjust docutils slightly.
>
> [Andreas Jung]
>>> No, Zope 3 ships only with the 'docutils' subdirectory of the
>>> Docutils package.
>
> [Jim]
>> What is it lacking?
>
> I suppose it's the 'docs', 'extras', 'licenses' and 'tools'
> subdirectories, although I see that the 'tools' subdirectory checked
> in on Zope-2_7-branch was stripped of its GPL'ed pieces first.
>
> Andreas, does Zope 2 *use* any of the stuff in the non-docutils
> subdirectories?
>
> Jim, while I personally don't care much, Zope3's repackaging of
> docutils doesn't meet license requirements to retain the original
> licenses in derivative works.  Zope2's does, because it includes
> docutil's whole 'licenses' subdirectory (except for the GPL).

I think we should stop the discussion at this point and follow  Tres
suggestion:

 - import Docutils somewhere into the CVS/SVN

 - link the docutils/docutils subfolder to lib/python in the CVS

 - move roman.py into parsers/rest as Jim did for Zope 3

I have no idea how we should with this issue in the SVN. Maybe
svn:externals will do the job either  to the Docutils version within
Z3 or a shared Docutils shared somewhere within the SVN.

Andreas