Closed jensens closed 4 months ago
Well, I do not think we should start with the wrong direction.
-> I think we should first start with a distribution here and then make first a plan and then move templates over here.
I fixed a few problems on a branch. But moving this to pyproject.toml-only is not possible yet, unfortunately: it does not work with Buildout in development mode: https://github.com/buildout/buildout/issues/652
And just to reiterate my point on moving to native namespaces: I am against that in Plone 6. Theoretically we could do this, but then we need to do this for all packages in the plone namespace. Otherwise if someone wants to fix a bug in another package that still uses pkg_resources-namespaces, they must first move that package to native namespaces, otherwise you cannot even install it in development mode together with already modernised packages. I really don't want that hassle in Plone 6.x.
Closing this in favour of PR #9.
And just to reiterate my point on moving to native namespaces: I am against that in Plone 6. Theoretically we could do this, but then we need to do this for all packages in the plone namespace. Otherwise if someone wants to fix a bug in another package that still uses pkg_resources-namespaces, they must first move that package to native namespaces, otherwise you cannot even install it in development mode together with already modernised packages. I really don't want that hassle in Plone 6.x.
FTR: Using pyproject.toml
(and dropping setup.*) is not related to using native namespaces, these topics are completely unrelated.
In Plone 6.1 I would not let this package depend on
Products.CMFPlone
, but the other way around. I have updated https://github.com/plone/Products.CMFPlone/issues/3953 with some thoughts. But we could decide differently.Also, I would not move to native namespaces at this point. I still think this is best done for all packages in Plone 7.