Bug#335488: [Pkg-zope-developers] Re: Bug#335488: Removal request for old zope packages

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 01:16:40AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:53:37PM +0100, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> > > On dom, 20 nov 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > > Why isn't the canonical zope version simply called 'zope' here? If I'd
> > > > remove zope, there will be no 'zope' package anymore for people to install.
> > > 
> > > Well, in my opinion having no 'zope' package is a good thing: zope
> > > development is focused on two branches (zope2.x and zope3) so at least two
> > > packages will have to coexists. When sarge has been released, zope2.7 was
> > > the 'default' zope version, and now it could probably removed in favour of
> > > zope2.8, but there are *a lot* of differences between them (read: the Five
> > > framework).
> > 
> > Oh, so there are currently no less than *four* versions of zope in
> > unstable?
> 
> calm down.

Ok :)
 
> > I'd very strongly suggest to make that zope2 and zope3 only, while there
> > surely can be a lot of difference between minor versions, I do not think
> > it's a good thing to have multiple minor versions in the archive
> > simultaneously, especially considering zope2 is apparantly obsolete
> > already.
> 
> that's rubbish, not an argument. plone doesn't work with zope3.

Hence the 'apparantly', I indeed don't know about pro & cons of each
version, which was already quite obvious to myself as I didn't know
about zope3 at all yet. Nor should I per se know this, as I'm not
involved in zope. I'm speaking here as stakeholder for the FTP archive
in general, and also partly for the release team's (and security team's)
express wish to strongly reduce the number of
different-version-same-package occurances in Debian.

Note also that above I didn't suggest to drop zope2 altogether, my
suggestion to go for one zope version was of before I knew there was a
zope3 -- I meant one zope2.x version.

> it should be a goal to have one 2.x and one 3.x version in etch. if
> 2.x can be avoided, that's ok.

Cool, that's great.

> > Thank's a lot!
> 
> yeah, thanks a lot for your constructive comments!

I don't think I can very constructively contribute in my role as FTP
team member to zope packaging, not being involved in zope, I merely
wanted to express my concern about the number of zope packages in the
archive. How to deal with that, is something only people interested in
zope itself can usefully determine.

Thanks,
--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen at wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl