[Zope-dev] release checker bot results.

[Chris McDonough]

On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:

>
> On Nov 14, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
>
>> Attempting to easy_install all 'zope'-related releases using the  
>> script at http://svn.repoze.org/playground/trunk/chris/zopesvnchecker/releasechecker.py 
>>  , the results were:
>>
>> 122 failures, 67 successes.
>
> I guess most of these can be fixed by unscrewing the zope.traversing  
> problem. Has anyone done that? Is anyone going to? :) If not, I will  
> just cause I'm tired of reading about it. :(

I would, but I don't have access.  I think we just need to take down  
the bogus zope.app.publisher 3.5.0a2 release.

I hate the idea of removing releases (because it "changes history").   
But I suspect it's a better solution than releasing zope.app.publisher  
3.5.0  and zope.traversing 3.5.0, where zope.app.publisher 3.5.0  
depends on 'zope.traversing' instead of 'zope.traversing>=3.5.0a1.dev- 
r78730'.  That would mean we're positing that that release actually  
works with everything else and I don't know if it does or doesn't.

> Some of these errors are spurious.  For example, ZODB4 shows up as a  
> failure even though there are no distributions.  I think the test  
> script needs to check for this case.

I think the metadata on the cheeseshop needs to get cleaned up:

 >>> import xmlrpclib
 >>> s = xmlrpclib.ServerProxy('http://www.python.org/pypi')
 >>> s.package_releases('ZODB4')
['4.0a2']

http://pypi.python.org/pypi/ZODB4/4.0a2

> I also think you should not list as failures anything that failes  
> due to a gcc error. Often this will be due to the absense of  
> libraries (e.g. spread).

Yep.  I'll have to maintain the exclude list manually I think, because  
the failure output isn't necessarily regular.

- C