From: Sophana <so...@zi...> - 2008-03-07 10:50:32
|
Hi I'm using webware and am very happy with it. However, I think webware packaging should be "more standard" I think it becomes necessary to have easyinstall, rpm or debian packages of webware The same for webware applications, the application context is not packageable, as it has direct pathnames to the webware installation. What about compatibility between applications and webware versions... I've read on this list that there were effort made for this, what is the status? packaging is important if you want to see open source projects using webware... Today, I know very very few applications available for webware. When looking at python paste, it looks completely different Regards |
From: Christoph Z. <ci...@on...> - 2008-03-07 11:28:16
|
Sophana schrieb: > I'm using webware and am very happy with it. > However, I think webware packaging should be "more standard" > I think it becomes necessary to have easyinstall, rpm or debian packages > of webware Webware is really old, started in the pre Python 2.0 ages which had not even a distutils package. So Webware invented a lot of the stuff itself we now take for granted, e.g. its own plugin-system. You're right, this is now an anachronism. I'm planning to make Webware more standard which involves some drastic changes. I wanted to start a discussion about this after Webware 1.0 is out. This must happen in a new version branch. > The same for webware applications, the application context is not > packageable, as it has direct pathnames to the webware installation. > What about compatibility between applications and webware versions... Since version 0.9 or so, there are no absolute pathnames in Webware working dirs any more, except one single pointer to the Webware installation itself, so you can freely move an copy them. Concerning compatibility, the 1.0 branch will be stable and maintained with bugfixes for a very long time. -- Christoph |