python-zope.component dependency question

[Rick McBride]

Brian Sutherland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 10:07:57AM +0100, Brian Sutherland wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 05:43:19PM -0500, Rick McBride wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> One of the packages that my team's project uses depends on  
>>> python-zope.compent. This package in turn pulls in python-zodb. It  
>>> doesn't seem like that package is strictly necessary in all cases.
>>>
>>> Is it possible that this Depends: could instead be a Recommends: ?
>> You mean the "persistentregistry" setuptools extra, right? 

I don't think I had tracked it down quite that specifically, but that 
certainly looks like it's the 'culprit' so to speak.

>> Not sure what is the best in this case, these are the things we can do with a
>> setuptools extra:
>>
>>     1 Keep them as dependencies of the main package (safe default)
>>     2 Exclude them altogether
>>     3 Move them to suggests
>>     4 Move them to recommends
>>     5 Move an extra into a metapackage named after it (i.e. 
>>       python-zope.component-zcml for the zcml extra)
>>     6 Move one or more extras into a randomly named metapackage
>>         e.g. python-zope.component-extras which contains/provides:
>>                 python-zope.component-zcml
>>                 python-zope.component-persistentregistry
>>
>> What option to select is not always obvious.
>>
>> Options 2,3 and 4 mean that a python-zope.component-persistentregistry
>> package will not be in Provides: leading to some packages being
>> uninstallable [1]. I don't think this is appropriate for this extra of
>> zope.component. Especially taking into account how fundamental
>> zope.component is.
>>
>> I think that the persistentregistry is different enough to the zcml
>> extra that it shouldn't be lumped together in the same metapackage
>> (option 6). So the only option left is 5.
> 
> On the other hand, you could argue that any package requiring a
> persistent component registry will already be depending on the zodb in
> any case. In that way the persistentregistry extra is probably not all
> that useful and we'd be safe just having it as a Suggests/Recommends.
> 

This would seem to be the lower maintenance option of the two. What can 
I do to help?

>> Any objections to me implementing option 5?
>>
>> [1] Means a debian package with "zope.component [persistentregistry]" as
>>     a dependency in it's setup.py and using van.pydeb to convert setuptools
>>     dependencies into Debian dependencies.
>>
>>> currently python-zodb appears to want python2.4 installed. We'd like to  
>>> avoid that if at all possible.
>>>
>>> It was suggested that I look for the answer here.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Rick McBride
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pkg-zope-developers mailing list
>>> pkg-zope-developers at lists.alioth.debian.org
>>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-zope-developers
>> -- 
>> Brian Sutherland
>