Re: zope.testbrowser packaging

Hi Benji. I don't like the first option. I am already using a zope 
extras to group packages for other reasons and don't really want to mix 
this with the test extra. I am trying to use extras as much as possible 
opposed to listing reams of packages in buildout.cfg to keep it cleaner 
and simpler. I don't mind the strange name to be honest, the namespaces 
  are informative. Many thanks.

Regards,
David

Benji York wrote:
> I have a small issue with zope.testbrowser packaging I'd like to get 
> some input on.  If I were to have started the project today, it would 
> likely have been zc.testbrowser, which would have no Zope 3 dependencies 
> (or functionality) and zc.testbrowser.zope, which would have, and 
> depended on zc.testbrowser.  Well, that didn't happen, but there are 
> parallels to the current situation that might be informative.
> 
> There is a configuration bug in testbrowser that means that unless you 
> include the "test" extra, you won't get the Zope 3 dependencies.  I 
> suspect most people either include that extra, or accidentally include 
> the dependencies through other packages.  I have two ideas for fixing this:
> 
> 1) introduce a "zope" extra that everyone will have to use (basically 
> just rename "test" to "zope";
> 
> 2) take a lesson from the fictional zc.testbrowser and introduce another 
> package (zope.testbrowser.zope) that contains the Zope 3 bits and 
> depends on zope.testbrowser.
> 
> I think I prefer the second, despite it's strange appearance.  Thoughts?