[Zope3-Users] buildout and egg depedencies

[Jean-François Roche]

Jeff Shell a écrit :
> On Dec 6, 2007 8:08 AM, Benji York <benji at zope.com> wrote:
>> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> None of the above. What is the harm of the dependencies?
>> One of the options included in "none of the above" is to not use
>> buildout at all.  Forget that the project in question uses buildout (or
>> setuptools) and integrate it into your project however you would have
>> before those tools existed (svn:externals, make a checkout, whatever).
> 
> That's such a disappointing answer. It's one that I've gotten a couple
> of times when I've said "hey, I'm trying to move to a release based
> system using distutils and setuptools and I'm floundering." And I have
> made our own system. And it's.... I don't know. I'd like to spend more
> time solving customer problems than figuring out how to install our
> solutions to customer problems. We're in desperate need of reliable,
> repeatable distributions. DESPERATE.
> 
> How did it come to be that the Python tools are so bad at this?
> Setuptools is horrible when it comes to doing local
> (instance-home-ish) installations, requiring virtualenv or whatever.
> And I've had little success getting those to work. Maybe they just
> break my way of thinking about how Python does and should work.
> Whatever. Buildout looks like it tries to address many of those
> issues, but again I find myself fighting against my natural instincts.
> Where's some end user documentation? The doc-test is difficult to read
> and speaks in generics, not about day-to-day problems. The Recipes are
> even worse, leaving one to clamor through the web to get back to the
> cheeseshop page and then face the same difficult to read doc-test kind
> of 'help'. Which I wouldn't mind reading, if I could easily read that
> help locally, like a man page or using Python's 'help()' system.
> ``buildout help zc.recipe.egg``, ``buildout help zc.recipe.cmmi``,
> whatever.
> 
> That I'm still frustrated by these tools all this time later is
> disappointing. And yes, it's easier to write your own. That's the
> Python way. Don't understand [zope, pylons, cherrypy, quixote,
> skunkweb]? Write your own web framework! Python does make it easy to
> do that because it's such a fantastic language. But I think that
> attitude, in turn, gives us worse tools, because everyone scratches
> their own itch and moves on, leaving everything incomplete. It seems
> almost like it's easier to write your own tool than to read whatever
> cryptic documentation exists for another.
> 
> I've gotten Buildout to work on some small components. It's great -
> check out the source, run buildout, wait, wait, wait, and then have a
> nice little self contained testing and development environment. But
> I've never been able to get a full Zope 3 "Application" up and running
> in that environment.
> 
> There's just no time and the tools are just too hard to learn under
> the circumstances my little company is operating in right now.
> Buildout *seems* like it could fix some big problems that have been
> hitting us hard in recent weeks. But I still can't wrap my head around
> how.
> 

For this specific problem, I came down to write a little buildout recipe
(thanks to Jim lights), more info at
http://www.jfroche.be/blogging/archive/2007/12/10/avoid-fetching-zope-3-libraries-in-buildout
and http://pypi.python.org/pypi/affinitic.recipe.fakezope2eggs/0.1

Regards,

			Jeff