Re: [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/tseaver-clarify_install_docs/doc/ Split out docs for 'normal' installation from those using 'zc.buildout'.

Tres Seaver wrote:
> - - The docs are intended primarily for folks who want to install and
>   run Zope, rather than hack on it.

Says who? The last comment I had on those docs was from Marius when he 
had to go back to a Zope 2 project and wanted to make it buildout based.
I've also used those docs myself when doing upgrades to Zope 2.12 (one 
of the reasons I did all the work on them!)

> - - zc.buildout is *super* heavyweight compared to virtualenv

A point of view, I don't happeen to agree, especially for the simple 
case of an instance... virtualenv doesn't fit my brain, buildout does. 
I'd hazard a guess that people still interested in Zope 2 might fall 
into that category too...

> - - zc.buildout creates an environment which is puzzling as hell for
>   anybody who hasn't already drunk the koolaid ('parts'?  'eggs'?
>   WTF?)

...or not.

bin/zopectl

...which is what you've done in Zope instances for years now...

having to guess where to find zopectl in a virtual env is not something 
that comes naturally to all of us...

> - - virtualenv, or something damn near it, is likely to land in Python
>   itself.

I don't think that discussion is anywhere near done yet ;-)

> - - Nearly anybody else in the Python world is more likely to be
>   familiar with the virtualenv stuff than with buildout.

Not 100% on that either, buildout has been active service in the Django 
community, and for all I know, elsewhere too..

> - - We have two alternate zc.buildout scenarios (install Zope + run
>   mkzopeinstance vs. self-contained environment).

Yes, I'm much more for the latter, but when I tried to make that "the 
only way", someone whined, so I tried to stay neutral...

>   run buildout to update the software (heaven help you if you forget
>   to configure the index properly!).

How is that any different from the virtual env route?!

>  The second leaves you without
>   the annotated config file, a *major* faux pas.

If someone wants to knock up a paster template, go right ahead. Myself, 
I'm not that fussed. I always trim away all the default values and 
commentary from my zope.conf anyway, since I know where to find the 
skeleton (wouldn't it be great if that figured in the Zope 2 docs where 
it belongs, since it really is documentation) and I like short config 
files that say what *is* actually configured rather than what *might* be 
a default value...

> I plan to merge that branch to the 2.12 branch and the trunk, assuming
> no further objections.

Well, maybe wait to see what other people think. The above is obviously 
my personal view, but I'd be surprised if I was the only person who had 
that view...

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
             - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [email protected]
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )