[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2 eggification [was: Merge philikon-aq branch into Zope trunk]

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Chris McDonough wrote:
>> I wonder if Philipp would be amenable to writing a proposal on this, 
>> and get Chris McDonough's input.
> 
> IMO, a Zope2 egg release should depend on the following packages:
> 
> - 'ZODB3' (already packaged)
> 
> - 'transaction' (depended on by newer ZODBs)
> 
> - 'ZConfig' (also depended on by newer ZODBs)
> 
> - 'StructuredText' (should be broken out into its own egg)
> 
> - 'docutils' (should use existing egg)
> 
> - 'mechanize' (should use existing egg)
> 
> - 'pytz' (should use existing egg)
> 
> - all zope.* packages (properly pinned) that zope2 depends on

Yup. These are all done already.

> The actual top-level egg that depends on these things would contain all 
> the other packages depended on by Zope 2 (e.g. DateTime, Missing, 
> Products/*, Acquisition, ExtensionClass, ZPublisher, ZServer, etc).

Yup, we can do it like that. I still maintain that the zLOG, Interface 
and DateTime packages could be packaged separately without much effort. 
The benefit with those is that they'll either be obsolete very soon 
(zLOG, Interface) or may need off-beat updates (DateTime).

> We might call it 'zope2libs'.

What's wrong with just 'Zope2'?

> What needs to get worked out is the ability 
> to share headers between ZODB and this package so things can compile 
> properly.

I don't see this as a huge problem. You have a point that C headers 
introduce un-documented dependencies, but then again, how often do C 
headers change? It has worked so far with externals to the ZODB tree, 
it's not like anything's going to change there any time soon. (For 
instance, when I hacked Acquisition to support __parent__ pointers, I 
didn't have to change the headers either).