Jonathan Steffan wrote: > Karsten Wade wrote: >> ----- "Jonathan Steffan" <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> It's still in the works. I've had some setbacks moving from Plone >>> 2.5.3 >>> to Plone 3 (as a Plone developer). I'll try my best to put together >>> something for beta testing but I'd really like to look at some other >>> unrelated changes Ive been playing with (mainly getting rid of the >>> Makefiles). I'll try to put together an email with a score of >>> suggestions to test the waters for where we could go with this. Right >>> now the buildd (the daemon that interacts between plone and cvs) uses >>> the existing Makefiles but requires them to be error free and also >>> requires the innermost Makefile to be valid for building the >>> document. >>> It's very fragile to say the least. I'm working out a pure python >>> based >>> build system that will replace the Makefiles with simple/nice config >>> files for each module, among other things. I'll try to send this email >>> soon. >> Recommend that you send that email *before* you do any coding. I'm not sure what is fragile to Plone about the Makefiles, >> but it sounds like you are suggesting to duplicate their actions > entirely within Plone. > > Actually, the changes I would like to make will not have anything to do > with plone. Plone will just be able to trigger actions, in the same way > a human would. > > Thereby making a duplicate, parallel system to understand and maintain. > > Well, this is already the case. There is static logic to find the > innermost Makefile for the buildd (read: plone action) to actually work > with Hmm... thunderbird-- This already being the case: Changes to the way the Makefiles work would require changes in the logic of the buildd, albeit only a few functions. > >> Unless you plan on personally porting changes from the Makefile into this new system $FOREVER ... it doesn't seem like a plan that can scale. > > No, I'd like to see a pure python based solution replace the Makefiles. We have more in house python skills then any other; IMHO. > >> We already are resource challenged taking care of just one toolchain. > > Yes. I know. My thoughts on getting rid of the Makefiles has been from > observing comments about how much of a PITA they are to work with. > >> If the Makefiles in CVS have errors or are invalid, that is a larger problem than just Plone. >> Wouldn't the better solution be to fix the central Makefiles? > > I was proposing replacing the Makefiles. > > Jonathan Steffan > daMaestro > > -- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
