Zine

Re: About Zine's Makefile Deployment

From:

Michael Foord

Date:

2010-01-11 @ 00:40

Subject:

Re: About Zine's Makefile Deployment

On 11/01/2010 00:37, Armin Ronacher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is asked quite often so I want to open that topic for discussions.
>   Currently Zine comes with a makefile that will bytecompile the Python
> files and copy the application into (for Unix administrators) common
> directories.  The application code itself ends in /usr/lib/zine, the
> shared data in /usr/share/zine etc.
>
> I did not chose to use setuptools because setuptools installs that whole
> thing into the site-packages folder which is really not the place where
> I see applications.
>
> Now that turned out to be a solution not everybody is happy with.  My
> personal choice of application deployment is if I am able to apt-get
> upgrade and get my blog upgraded, so for that makefiles are a good
> choice I think because debian maintainers can easily create a .deb from it.
>
> Now I would love to stick with that, but I suppose if enough people
> would like the idea, we could provide a setup.py as well that installs
> into the site-packages of the global python installation or a virtualenv.
>
> So, if you have some thoughts on that, please provide your input :)
>
>
> Regards,
> Armin
>    
make is fine for me - both is ideal, but it isn't a big deal.

Michael

-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Michael Foord <michael@voidspace.org.uk>wrote:

> On 11/01/2010 00:37, Armin Ronacher wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is asked quite often so I want to open that topic for discussions.
> >   Currently Zine comes with a makefile that will bytecompile the Python
> > files and copy the application into (for Unix administrators) common
> > directories.  The application code itself ends in /usr/lib/zine, the
> > shared data in /usr/share/zine etc.
> >
> > I did not chose to use setuptools because setuptools installs that whole
> > thing into the site-packages folder which is really not the place where
> > I see applications.
> >
> > Now that turned out to be a solution not everybody is happy with.  My
> > personal choice of application deployment is if I am able to apt-get
> > upgrade and get my blog upgraded, so for that makefiles are a good
> > choice I think because debian maintainers can easily create a .deb from
> it.
>

I suppose there are as many favourite ways to deploy an application as there
are people trying to do it. I personally like to install something once and
never touch it again. This way I often end up with multiple concurrent
instances of the same application, but likely different version of it.
Nowadays you quite often you need some cutting edge functionality out of an
alpha-quality branch for one project, but you don't want to break some
already-running other project. I just do a fresh checkout of Zine and run
the server from within the checked out directory tree which works like a
charm.


> >
> > Now I would love to stick with that, but I suppose if enough people
> > would like the idea, we could provide a setup.py as well that installs
> > into the site-packages of the global python installation or a virtualenv.
>

I think that for the sake of being attractive for people that want (or
actually need) to install it "the setuptools way", we could provide a
setup.py as well, it shouldn't be a hard task.

Regards,
  Artem

Hi Armin,

I'm satisfied with make approach, but setuptools one is also welcome for me.

With setuptools interface, I can install Zine from PyPI directly, and
when I want
to use Zine library from another application, I can use it without
adding Zine library
path to sys.path explicitly. I'm thinking about showing recent Zine
articles in website's
toppage.

Thank you for developing ZIne,
Junya

2010/1/11 Michael Foord <michael@voidspace.org.uk>:
> On 11/01/2010 00:37, Armin Ronacher wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is asked quite often so I want to open that topic for discussions.
>>   Currently Zine comes with a makefile that will bytecompile the Python
>> files and copy the application into (for Unix administrators) common
>> directories.  The application code itself ends in /usr/lib/zine, the
>> shared data in /usr/share/zine etc.
>>
>> I did not chose to use setuptools because setuptools installs that whole
>> thing into the site-packages folder which is really not the place where
>> I see applications.
>>
>> Now that turned out to be a solution not everybody is happy with.  My
>> personal choice of application deployment is if I am able to apt-get
>> upgrade and get my blog upgraded, so for that makefiles are a good
>> choice I think because debian maintainers can easily create a .deb from it.
>>
>> Now I would love to stick with that, but I suppose if enough people
>> would like the idea, we could provide a setup.py as well that installs
>> into the site-packages of the global python installation or a virtualenv.
>>
>> So, if you have some thoughts on that, please provide your input :)
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Armin
>>
> make is fine for me - both is ideal, but it isn't a big deal.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/>
> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog>
>
>
>



-- 
--------------------
林 淳哉 <ledmonster@gmail.com>