David G. Mackay
mackay_d at bellsouth.net
Tue Sep 4 12:48:18 UTC 2007
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 12:26 -0600, Jonathan Steffan wrote:
> > As it stands, Zope and Plone, which were availabe in
> > Extras for FC6, aren't available directly, and probably won't be for F8.
> I'm still maintaining the FC6 packages and the EPEL packages (granted
> updates for EPEL go to updates-testing) using the provided python.
Hi, Jonathan. FC6 will hit EOL soon, but I suppose maintaing things for EPEL
will keep you off the streets, and out of bars for a while.
> Plone will not be running on python 2.5 for some time. Plone is
> currently targeting Zope 2, albeit "Five" is like backporting Zope 3
> code, and Zope 3 is *just now* starting to work with python 2.5... or is
> at least close. This currently has the effect of restricting Zope 2 to
> FC <= 6. I can't speak for the Zope developers, but I don't see a rush
> to also get Zope 2 working with python 2.5.
And, I wouldn't be too sanguine about the prospects of either working
with 2.6 for quite some time.
> == compat-python24 ==
> Maybe today I will finish my upgrade testing and will push the compat-
> packages into livna. The compat-python packages have passed review and I
> just need to upload the new compat packages for zope (2.10.4) and plone
> (3.0). I'm guessing this means I am going to end up being the
> compat-python maintainer [in livna]. I was more or less avoiding this
> because I'm not sure I will know what to do when things break and would
> inheritly be passing the buck, so to speak. I would have to ask for
Unless it somehow interferes with the standard python package, be it
2.5, 2.6, or whatever, I don't expect much. I'd love to get a recap of
that in about six months or so. Out of the twelve bugs for python in
FC6, eight were dups, not a bug, or rawhide. The four actual bugs that
are still open were probably kicked upstream, and remain open eight or
nine months later.
> help, either on IRC or this list (and have no problem doing so) which
> does create extra overhead and is something that was trying to be
> avoided. Anywho, the packages are done and work (I've been using them
> for most of the Fedora 7 release). I've only packaged what is needed for
> Zope/Plone and that was another point in the discussion. Who decides
> what compat support/module we provide? Seeing as how the packages I've
> done are for my personal uses for Zope/Plone, I'm most likely not going
> to personally do many other compat-python packages. compat-python-ldap
> will be there at some point, but I think that is all.
Thank you very much for your efforts.
> == /compat-python24 ==
> Zope/Plone is a somewhat special case with what broke and I'm not sure
> having python 2.5 packages (in Fedora) earlier would have helped
> anything. I'm all for getting python 3 packaged and available, but agree
> outside of Fedora would be best. Even if python 3 is available, we are
> still going to need to rely upon upstream projects using python to be
> aware of the changes and start testing/fixing. There seems to be more to
> this process then I want to spend time on (politics?) and thus have gone
> the route of compat packages.
I haven't really looked for discussion on the Zope lists concerning
python 3.x, but if I owned as many lines of python code as they do, I'd
be a very unhappy camper. Maybe someone will come along and design a
language that's a worthy successor to python. Someone with a bit more
regard for the end users.
More information about the fedora-devel-list