[Distutils] Proposal for incorporating buildout-versions on buildout (Re: Better version pinning in buildout (buildout-versions))

[Jim Fulton]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Reinout van Rees <reinout at vanrees.org> wrote:
> On 16-01-13 13:52, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I propose that buildout-versions get incorporated into
>>>> buildout in the following way:
>
>
> I've prepared a pull request:
> https://github.com/buildout/buildout/pull/46

Thanks!

...

>>> 3. New buildout option: ``python-version`` that restricts the Python
>>>     version, with the same semantics as buildout-version provides now.
>
>
> Hm. I copy/pasted the buildout-versions code and worked from there.
> Buildout-versions simply looks at a 'python' entry in the [versions] part,
> so that's different from a python-version option.
>
> That's not too bad as it saves us another buildout option. But... do we want
> to change this?

I think so.  Python itself is not a distutils distribution.  This feels like
mixing apples and oranges.  Also, version entries can now have
>=, >, <= and < modifiers, but you aren't supporting that for Python versions.

I'd rather make this a separate option.

Also, the implementation shouldn't simply test whether the version is
in the version string.  It's too easy to get false matches.  The
implementation should parse the version (maybe as simple as splitting
on dots) and check it against sys.version_info.

>> 1, 2, and 3 will be done when Chris (or someone else) makes
>> time to work on a pull request.  Perhaps this will be in buildout 2.1.
>
>
> Should my pull request land in 2.0 instead of in 2.1?

I'd rather get 2.0 out sooner.  2.1 doesn't have to lag far behind.
If your pull request was perfect and I landed it right now, we'd
need another beta.  As it is, I think the handling of the Python
version needs a little work.

> Alternative is that Chris accepts the buildout-versions pull request I
> prepared, but he's right (I think) in preferring it to land in buildout
> itself.

The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

> (I myself cannot really use buildout 2 without the buildout-versions
> functionality either in buildout itself or in a new buildout-versions).

Ok, so you'd wait for 2.1, unless Chris releases a compatible buildout-versions.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm