[Zope-dev] Re: ploneout - Or how using zc.buildout for a common Zope2 project might look like

[Martin Aspeli]

> Right. What I'm saying is that this should be the default. Sensible  
> defaults is sometimes all it takes to get something adopted. Just  
> look at that Plone thang ;).

Yeah. I'd be happy to move the Data.fs directory to var/${part_name} 
under the main buildout directory.

I'd also be happy to make a script in bin/ in the main buildout 
directory to start the instance, but I am not sure what to do about 
Windows. Maybe make a batchfile as well that calls runzope.bat?

> On another tangent, I'd like to direct your attention to grokproject  
> (http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/grokproject). It's an idiot-proof  
> way of setting up new buildouts that have grok and a custom  
> development package preconfigured. It uses paste.script to create a  
> raw buildout directory with a bunch of default and boilerplate  
> things. It then bootstraps the buildout and builds the buildout. It's  
> not rocket science, but it's made the whole "how do I get started  
> with grok" thing a lot easier.

Interesting. I like that idea, and we should definitely consider using 
PasteScript to create ploneout-like instances once we stabilise the 
Ploneout layout.

For those who don't follow, that'd mean you'd do:

  $ easy_install ZopeSkel

ZopeSkel contains various pastescript skeletons for zope and plone 
development; we could use a different package of course, but having them 
all in one makes sense to me. It will install PasteScript etc as well

  $ paster create -t plone_project

And that asks you a bunch of questions and you get a new buildout.

> I could envision that buildout-based deployment for end users (who  
> don't necessarily tweak buildout.cfg etc.) could look a lot like  
> that. Perhaps it's worth exploring this in a general manner, so that  
> grok, Plone, and other zc.buildout consumers could share the same  
> platform for end-user installation.

Indeed. Though to be fair, I'm not sure how much there would be to 
share, if you basically have a PasteScript template that creates a 
buildout.cfg and the buildout bootstrap.

> I see some common goals to  
> tackle, for example:
> 
> - off-line installation (bootstrapping a buildout from already packaged
>    eggs instead of downloading from the internet)

Yes. One thing pretty high on my list would be a version of the Zope 2 
installation that downloaded a tarball rather than from svn (the svn 
checkout is slooooooow) and/or could use an existing tarball or even an 
existing zope2 installation.

> - a Windows installer

Yeah. As I said before, we need someone to own this on Windows.

Martin