[Pkg-zope-developers] Consider adding a reference to "plone-site" to the plone description (at the very least)

[Fabio Tranchitella]

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.

> 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... and how many
> users will look there?  You know, Zope is quite intimidating, no need
> to make it harder or more frustrating than it already is. ;)

You are right, I'll add a note within /usr/share/doc/plone/README.Debian
about plone-site package.

> 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 outdated to me.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No, there is no policy and the one you found is quite outdated.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.

> 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. :)

>   + 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.

> PS: I actually purged all zope stuff due to my installation having been
> way out of date, and installed everything freshly with a simple
> "apt-get install plone"
> 
> PPS: I'll spare you my pet-peeve rant about "treating users as idiots"
> here, though "you have to install $XYZZY-site to get an actual running
> Zope" almost made me...  On the other hand, it (also) smells of
> assuming too much on the side of the user, like the user realizing
> (how?) that he/she wants plone-site instead of plone.  Or finding the
> way to dzhandle in zope-common.  Weird...

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.

-- 
Fabio Tranchitella <kobold at debian.org>                        .''`.
Proud Debian GNU/Linux developer, admin and user.            : :'  :
                                                             `. `'`
   http://people.debian.org/~kobold/                           `-
_____________________________________________________________________
1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Questa parte del messaggio =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= firmata
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-zope-developers/attachments/20060405/5a8da6a1/attachment.pgp