[Zope] Question about python binary with zope install

[Jim Penny]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 02:15:28PM -0500, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> > I just installed zope 2.3.0 for Linux, from the tar file downloaded from
> > the Zope site. Went great. I noticed in the docs that a pre-compiled
> > binary of Python comes with the zope tarball in a bin subdir. Well, my
> > question is -- since I am new to python, have done a lot with perl -- the
> > binary that comes with zope is 1.5 megs, while I already have another
> > binary that came with my mandrake 7.2 system, same version, 1.5.2, in
> > /usr/bin. It is only 423k. Are there certain modules or whatever added to
> > the binary that comes with Zope that I need to use? Therefore, should I
> > replace the /usr/bin/python with the python binary that is in the Zope bin
> > dir? What effect would that have on my python installation? Could someones
> > shed some light on this for me? Any help much appreciated.
> 
> The binary releases come with a pre-compiled and self-contained
> Python interpreter and library. The intent of that is so that
> people don't have to worry about any existing Python install
> on the machine. The packaged one contains everything needed to
> run Zope, but doesn't interfere with or require anything of
> any other Python on the machine.
> 
> You do not want to replace the existing python binary in /usr/bin
> with the Zope one - if you want to upgrade the Python on the
> box you should use a distribution from www.python.org, which
> will ensure that all of the various dependencies (like the Python
> libraries) are updated correctly.
> 

Once more, I will flog a dying equine.  Please change the binary
release policy.  While I understand your motivation, I think you
are not helping the people you mean to.

On the download page, encourage people to try the source distribution
first!  The current download text makes it sound like source is only
there for uber-geeks; in fact, a source install is no harder than a
binary install, assuming a working 1.5.2 python.

Then recommend that if for any reason the source install does not
work, they may wish to try to get a binary from their operating system
vendor.

Only then should they use a binary install from zope.org.  And there
needs to be prominent documentation of which python will be invoked and
where extension modules must be placed.

Reasons:  1) A few people notice there are multiple pythons and get
really concerned.  2) More people do not notice that there are multiple
pythons, try something in python which won't work in zope and get
really confused.  3)  You now have multiple extension module directories,
and the zope one is in a fairly surprising place and is undocumented.
If a user ever needs to add an extension module, it will probably be put
in a place zope cannot find it.  While that could be handled by symbolic
links, your assumption that they cannot handle the install process in 
zope's tarball ought to make it clear that they cannot do symbolic links.

> Brian Lloyd        brian@digicool.com
> Software Engineer  540.371.6909
> Digital Creations  http://www.digicool.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
> **   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
> (Related lists - 
>  http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
>  http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
>