Preparation for Plone2

Tim Middleton x at Vex.Net
Mon Jan 19 22:08:36 PST 2004

On Monday 19 January 2004 10:05, Khairil Yusof wrote:
> In preparation for Plone2 (Fillipo is working on it), I'm creating
> additional CMF ports required by Plone2. This should also make Fillipo's

Good stuff. I was about to install the latest Plone 2 on a server just before 
i read this. I was just going to do it manually... but had been thinking 
someone really needs to make a port for it, even if it is plone-devel ... 

Another one I'm thinking a lot about for some time now is Zope 2.7. I don't 
use Zope 2.6 anywhere anymore that I can avoid it. Zope 2.7, while 
essentially, the same is so much nicer to handle and develop with, with the 
conf file, and zopectl. But most of all, Zope 2.7 is recommended to be run 
with Python 2.3. At long last, a Zope in sync with a more modern Python 
version... this solves so many headaches and incompatibilities.

(I noticed your last post asking about fixing libxml2 to work for python 
2.1... my answer is forget python 2.1 and zope 2.6...! But i understand this 
may not be practical for some people). 

I had been wondering if there shouldn't be a zope-devel port for 2.7. But I 
don't really understand how 2.6 and 2.7 co-exist. I just noticed 
announcing that 2.6.4-RC1 and 2.7-RC1 are released at the same time...

I've yet to find anything I couldn't get working on Zope 2.7. There have been 
a few glitches in the past, but they've all been sorted out ... at least the 
ones i've noticed. Maybe we should start thinking about about moving the zope 
port to Zope 2.7. Or maybe there will need to be a zope27 port, living along 
side 2.6? Ugly. 

There are some differences in the way Zope 2.7 prefers to install. I wonder 
how the Zope port maintainers view this. Zope 2.7, while it can be installed 
in a similar 'stand-alone' way to zope 2.6, prefers (and is much nicer) to be 
installed almost more like a "library", and then have a seperate instance 
directory to run out of. Almost makes me think it should be installed 
to /usr/local/lib/zope (which actually is where NetBSD installs Zope 2.6), 
and then an instance created at the current standard 
location /usr/local/www/Zope (perhaps the lib/zope should be lib/Zope, if 
anyone took up this idea, for consistency).

But then if it is moved this could break all the product ports? Or at least 
require them all to be inreinstalled with an updated to go to 
the new location...  the instance would stil have the /var directory, so the 
Data.fs can stay where it is... probably more of a pain that most poeple 
would want. Seems a shame to be stuck on the "old way" of installing zope 
though, when it is so much easier now to handle instances. 

At the moment I manually install Zope 2.7 to /usr/local/www/Zope just to 
maintain compatibility with all the ports. Then i create an instance 
elsewhere (though usually still under /usr/local/www), from which zope is 
actually run.

Ah, it's just a little change... but gives much to think about.

Maybe zope-devel should be zope 3 (-: I manually install zope 3 every once in 
a while just to see how it's going... it's starting to come together a bit. I 
don't have enough interest to make or maintain a port for it... but it would 
be fun if someone else did. (-;

Anyhow, I can't really wait for the Plone 2 port... have to install it now (I 
think). But am pleased to hear that one is being worked on... it will make 
administration easier in the near future. 

Tim Middleton | Cain Gang Ltd | There are a thousand hacking at the branches
x at     | www.Vex.Net   | of evil [but who] at the root. --Thoreau (W)

More information about the freebsd-python mailing list