[Pkg-zope-developers] plone/plone-site, and doing the obvious

Jürgen A. Erhard jae+debian at jerhard.org
Wed Apr 5 15:04:46 UTC 2006

[Sorry for the duplicate, Fabio, but I just hit R, so... the list
needs a copy (like a hole in the head, I'm sure ;) ]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:12:35AM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Il giorno mer, 05/04/2006 alle 01.14 +0200, Jürgen A. Erhard ha scritto:
> > (This started as a bug report to plone, but since it's too general, I
> > sent it to the list directly... no idea if it works)
> Hi Jürgen, thanks for your email.

Hi Fabio, and thanks for reading over the inflammatory bits. :)

> > The docs... /usr/share/doc/plone has nothing on either plone-site or
> > how to get Zope running.  Ah, yes, it's in zope-common... [...]
> You are right, I'll add a note within /usr/share/doc/plone/README.Debian
> about plone-site package.

I think a short (two lines or so) note in the long description would
be better.  Since then people who actually want a plone site don't
install the (then) unneeded plone package.  And less frustration too:
install plone, nothing works, finally they find README.Debian and then
have to install *another* package.

BTW, why does plone-site Suggest plone?  Wouldn't the other way around
make more sense?  Combined with a "if you want a ready-to-work-with
Plone instance, install plone-site" comment in the long description...

Oh, and please don't just point them to plone-site... do that in the
long description, and point them to that and to "how to get Zope
actually running" in plone's README.Debian.  So, they can choose
themselves: do the manual Zope setup, or do the easy-peasy apt-get
install plone-site.  ;)

> > Hmm, I searched and found a "Debian Zope Policy"... which looks way
> > outdated to me.  So, what *is* the policy?  Is there one?  If so, does
> > it mandate "don't create a default instance on installation"?  Or did
> > I miss the announcement that Debian does not enable a server when they
> > are installed anymore.
> No, there is no policy and the one you found is quite outdated. And yes,
> we won't install a zope instance unless the system administrator does it
> manually using dzhandle or installing the zopeX-sandbox packages.

You mention dzhandle in the long description of at least
zope2.8-sandbox, so why not mention it in the main zope2.8 long desc

(Oh, and add a zsh completion script for dzhandle (and one for bash for
good measure), and I'd actually like dzhandle :P )

> > I'd just like Zope to be more accessible.  And I don't think the
> > current packaging is really achieving this.  You might think it's
> > oh-so-clear... but I think it's pretty obvious it isn't.
> It's a matter of personal opinion, I think it is. :)

The ages-old "what's subjective / what's objective" dilemma. :)

> >   + Add a README.Debian to the actual zopeX.Y packages, refering the
> >     user (which bear reminding, is not just a user, but root) to the
> >     actual documentation.
> Ok, I'll do so.


> > PPS: I'll spare you my pet-peeve rant about "treating users as idiots"
> > [...]  On the other hand, it (also) smells of
> > assuming too much on the side of the user, [...]
> eszakisark:~> apt-cache search plone
> ...
> plone - content management system based on zope and cmf
> plone-site - preconfigured zope instance containing a plone site
> ...
> I suppose this is enough, but if you think I'm wrong let me know and
> I'll do everything is possible to help our users.

When I do that search, I get 33 lines.  The plone lines are 4 and 5
(or 5 and 6, two different systems).  In other words, hidden in a sea
of other stuff.  I give you that aptitude does better here...

But since neither plone nor zope says what a "zope instance" means (I
found the "assuming too much" spot! ;) ).  For a Zope veteran, this is
obvious.  But don't we want to get non-Zopistas on board? Especially
given the ease of use of Plone (compared to Zope's <elided> ;) )?

I'm not saying Zope *must* create a default instance (Not anymore, I
deleted that paragraph which was right here ;) ).  What I mean to say
is that things need to be more obvious, more "in the user's face" if
you will.

Bye, J

PS: Installing sarge's Plone/Zope mellowed my mood lots... may be *I*
assumed too much on installing/upgrading unstable Zope, namely,
assuming everything was as it had been in the (distant, was lazy on
updating this box) past, so I might have "ok"'d too many debconf
messages w/o actually paying attention to them.  I *still* stand by
the above, about making it obvious what people *get* when they install
Zope packages.  *Before* installing them.

PPS: You actually made it down here?  Congratulations, you are very
perseverant! :)

                            Jürgen A. Erhard
                     My WebHome: http://jerhard.org
             1. Man gewöhnt sich an allem - sogar am Dativ.
                 2. Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-zope-developers/attachments/20060405/09574705/attachment.pgp

More information about the Pkg-zope-developers mailing list