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. Dave -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
