[Zope-dev] Proposal: Scrap zpkg for Zope2 releases

[Chris McDonough]

+1, back to the future...

I'll note that when I was getting this stuff done in 2.7, it was  
incredibly useful to try to package Zope as an RPM (or deb, etc)  
while doing itbecause you find out where all the pointy edges are.   
Some of the functionality of the install routine (copyzopeskel in  
particular) was driven by a desire to make Zope easier to downstream- 
package.

- C

On Jun 22, 2006, at 10:35 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I worked last night with folks from the Fedora Extras project who were
> trying to package Zope 2.9.3 for FC5+.  Because they were working from
> the release tarball, generated by 'zpkg', much of my knowledge  
> about how
> the build process works (or doesn't) was invalid:
>
>   - The Makefile generated by 'zpkg' does not have bugfixes / features
>     which have been made to the 'Makefile' created by 'configure' in
>     a checkout.
>
>   - The 'install.py' script has subtly-different semantics from the
>     'setup.py' script in the checkout.  In particular, it was hard
>     to figure out how to get the installed libraries correct for the
>     x86_64 package.
>
>   - We have had a bunch of bugs since 2.9 related to the 'zpkg'-based
>     build, some related to lost features and other to various kinds
>     of breakage (see #1967, #1968, #1996, #2030, #2081, #2082, #2083,
>     #2121).
>
>   - Working inside the 'zpkg'-generated tarball is *very* confusing,
>     even for experienced Zope developers:  "Where is the source?"
>     is a frequent cry in such cases.
>
> All of this is due to the fact that none of the maintainers of  
> Zope2 is
> also a conusmer of the zpkg-gnereated releases;  those consumers  
> are the
> downstream packagers and sysadmins who have no idea how to work in  
> that
> setup, and who can't even (easily) get help on it from the Zope
> developer community.
>
> I believe that the extra flexibility which zpkg is intended to provide
> (dependency-based subset distributions, primarily) would be better
> served by moving Zope to use eggs, and that we should thus retire zpkg
> as the means for building Zope2 releases.  Instead, we should recreate
> the version of the 'inst' stuff removed in the 2.9 beta cycle, and
> update it for any changes to the tree made since then.
>
> I volunteer to do the work, assuming the community concurs.
>
>
> Tres.
> - --
> ===================================================================
> Tres Seaver          +1 202-558-7113          tseaver at palladion.com
> Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEmqrH+gerLs4ltQ4RApF2AKDTWq8XqY4OCuj5BpPZ3omCpnzEtwCghPnO
> nZ8S8NqTC1oZx8o3KVVJxBo=
> =4qXe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev at zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
> **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
> (Related lists -
>  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
>  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
>