[Distutils] Distribute and zc.buildout + bootstraping file names + release/branches roadmap

[Tarek Ziadé]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Chris Withers<chris at simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
>> for the scripts created in zc.recipe.egg sections, so distribute is
>> included in the sys.path
>> since this recipe re-creates it.
>
> Am I right in thinking this wouldn't be needed if zc.buildout and
> zc.recipe.egg both depended on distribute rather than setuptools?

Yes, but I think this takes more energy and more time to convince Jim, then
work in zc.buildout, etc.. than a single line in a cfg file, which I
find acceptable
from a project PoV like plone for example.

With the custom bootstrap, and a slight change in the cfg file, buildout
users can switch if they whish, and get to use *instantly* the 0.6 release,
while we work at a completely changed 0.7 one.

People in the community will also be able to fix remaning bugs we can
release in the 0.6.x branch while we work hard in 0.7.x for py3k support, etc..

> Would it be possible for distribute to raise an error if a package relied on
> setuptools? I don't see why a third party egg would have install_requires
> contain setuptools if it's already running from buildout, but it feels
> better to me to be explicit and raise an error than lie by creating a fake
> egg. I know fake eggs are popular in the plohn community, but I'd prefer not
> to drag that abomination in the wider python world.

Unfortunately, we have hunderds of packages out there with
"setuptools" in the install_requires.

If we take the plone example, every single egg has it (because it's in
the zopeskel skeleton)

which means plone applications won't work unless *every egg of the
community* is changed.

I'd rather be able to run already released eggs in my buildout today
rather than waiting for
the crowd to adopt it.

Plus, people wont adopt it if they can't taste it,

>


>> bootstraping.py replaces ez_setup.py
>
> Oh Tarek, you really do know how to pick names...
>
> Any chance you could switch this to distribute_setup.py or maybe d_setup.py
> to avoid dumb people like me constantly confusing the two?

Sure. distribute_setup.py sounds good, I can change.  That will be the
name, no further
change :)



-- 
Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org