[Zope-dev] z3c.recipe.compattest buildout 1.5/1.4 compatibility

[Wolfgang Schnerring]

* Jan-Wijbrand Kolman <janwijbrand at gmail.com> [2010-10-06 13:39]:
> On 10/6/10 12:49 PM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> * Jan-Jaap Driessen<jdriessen at thehealthagency.com>  [2010-10-05 18:09]:
>>> Version 0.12.2 of z3c.recipe.compattest is not compatible with recent
>>> versions of it's dependencies zc.buildout (v1.5.1), zc.recipe.egg
>>> (v1.3.2) and z3c.recipe.scripts. I fixed this in revision 117253.
>>> Is it OK with you to drop compatibility with zc.buildout versions<
>>> 1.5 in the next release of z3c.recipe.compattest?
>>
>> I'm all for moving forward, but I don't really understand why the
>> 1.5-update should cause such compatibility breakage.
>
> I think in this particular case z3c.recipe.compattest relied on 
> zc.buildout internals that now have have changed. So, no, I do not think 
> it really is an API change and as such it is not intentional breakage 
> nor something that __should__ be fixed in buildout.
>
> Ideally, z3c.recipe.compattest would be fixed in such a way that is does 
> make use of official buildout APIs.

Thanks for the explanation!
I agree with you, it would make a lot of sense to use official APIs and
not work around them. Don't know how hard that's going to be in this
case, though. ;)

> Still there's the case that quite some recipes need to be updated to
> zc.buildout 1.5.x if they want to use its new features ("system python
> support").

Ah. I didn't remember that compattest indeed does generate scripts (I
thought it was delegating everything, but that's not correct of course),
and I didn't understand from Jan-Jaaps email that system-python-support
was a goal here, too, I only got the "some compatibility broke" part and
was confused about that.

> BTW, I discussed updating the z3c.recipe.i18n for similar reasons - to 
> support newer buildout features - in a separate thread. There people 
> seemed to be +1 on releasing a recipe that declares its minimal buildout 
> version requirement to be >= 1.5.1. Would you say that that situation is 
> similar to this?

Yes, I agree, that makes sense, so +1 from me here.

Wolfgang