Bug 102838 – New ebuilds for Plone 2.1 rc2

• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Vadim Kuznetsov 2005-08-17 07:21:27 UTC]

There are bunch of ebuilds in attached archive:
net-zope/archetypes/archetypes-1.3.3.ebuild
net-zope/archetypes/archetypes-1.3.4.ebuild
net-zope/atcontenttypes/atcontenttypes-1.0.ebuild
net-zope/atreferencebrowserwidget/atreferencebrowserwidget-1.1.ebuild
net-zope/btreefolder2/btreefolder2-1.0.2.ebuild
net-zope/cmf/cmf-1.5.3.ebuild
net-zope/cmfdynamicviewfti/cmfdynamicviewfti-1.0.1.ebuild
net-zope/cmfformcontroller/cmfformcontroller-1.0.4.ebuild
net-zope/cmfformcontroller/cmfformcontroller-1.0.5.ebuild
net-zope/cmfquickinstallertool/cmfquickinstallertool-1.5.5.ebuild
net-zope/extendedpathindex/extendedpathindex-2.1.ebuild
net-zope/externaleditor/externaleditor-0.9.1.ebuild
net-zope/generator/generator-1.3.0.21.ebuild
net-zope/groupuserfolder/groupuserfolder-3.3.ebuild
net-zope/groupuserfolder/groupuserfolder-3.4.ebuild
net-zope/kupu/kupu-1.3.ebuild
net-zope/mimetypesregistry/mimetypesregistry-1.3.5.ebuild
net-zope/placelesstranslationservice/placelesstranslationservice-1.2.1.ebuild
net-zope/plone/plone-2.1.ebuild
net-zope/plonetranslations/plonetranslations-2.1.ebuild
net-zope/portaltransforms/portaltransforms-1.3.6.ebuild
net-zope/resourceregistries/resourceregistries-1.0.2.ebuild
net-zope/securemailhost/securemailhost-1.0.1.ebuild
net-zope/validation/validation-1.3.3.04.ebuild
net-zope/zope/zope-2.7.7.ebuild
net-zope/zope/zope-2.8.1.ebuild

Some of products are RC or beta ac it comes with Plone RC2.


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.




I used this as /etc/portage/package.keywords:

>=net-zope/plone-2.1 ~x86
>=net-zope/zope-2.8.1 ~x86
>=net-zope/cmf-1.5.3 ~x86
>=net-zope/cmfformcontroller-1.0.5 ~x86
>=net-zope/cmfquickinstallertool-1.5.5 ~x86
>=net-zope/btreefolder2-1.0.2 ~x86
>=net-zope/groupuserfolder-3.3 ~x86
>=net-zope/placelesstranslationservice-1.2.1 ~x86
>=net-zope/ploneerrorreporting-0.11 ~x86
>=net-zope/plonetranslations-2.1 ~x86
>=net-zope/securemailhost-1.0.1 ~x86
>=net-zope/extendedpathindex-2.1 ~x86
>=net-zope/resourceregistries-1.0.2 ~x86
>=net-zope/atreferencebrowserwidget-1.1 ~x86
>=net-zope/atcontenttypes-1.0.0 ~x86
>=net-zope/cmfdynamicviewfti-1.0.1 ~x86
>=net-zope/archetypes-1.3.4 ~x86
>=net-zope/kupu-1.3 ~x86
>=net-zope/externaleditor-0.9.1 ~x86
>=net-zope/portaltransforms-1.3.6 ~x86
>=net-zope/mimetypesregistry-1.3.5 ~x86
>=net-zope/generator-1.3.0.11 ~x86
>=net-zope/validation-1.3.3.04 ~x86

[Comment 1 Vadim Kuznetsov 2005-08-17 07:22:29 UTC]

Created attachment 66136 [details]
New ebuilds for Plone 2.1 RC2

[Comment 2 Radoslaw Stachowiak (RETIRED) 2005-08-17 11:42:21 UTC]

Vadim, we wont put RC2 into portage because 2.1 version is shortly expected.
But please feel free to reopen this bug (or better create a new one, assigning
directly net-zope team) when 2.1 will be out. Please also clean the tarbal and
leave ONLY direct required dependecies without zope or double versions as it is
now. 

Anyway thank you for Your contributions.

[Comment 3 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2005-08-23 15:57:20 UTC]

*** Bug 103517 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 4 Jesse Adelman 2005-09-07 13:51:15 UTC]

Plone 2.1 is out. (see http://www.plone.org/) Please re-open. Thanks.

[Comment 5 Vikram Kumar 2005-09-08 02:01:14 UTC]

> >=net-zope/zope-2.8.1 ~x86
From the Plone site,
http://plone.org/products/plone/releases/2.1
the minimum requirement is zope-2.7.7. Any particular reasons why this is set to
 >=zope-2.8.1 in the plone ebuild?

[Comment 6 Vadim Kuznetsov 2005-09-08 08:11:19 UTC]

(In reply to comment #5)
> > >=net-zope/zope-2.8.1 ~x86
> From the Plone site,
> http://plone.org/products/plone/releases/2.1
> the minimum requirement is zope-2.7.7. Any particular reasons why this is set to
>  >=zope-2.8.1 in the plone ebuild?
> 

Not realy. I did not know how to exclude 2.8.0. Second, plone require
btreefolder 2-1.0.2, which comes with 2.8.1. and not with 2.7.7. if you lows to
2.7.7 include btreefolder2 as dependency.

[Comment 7 Jesse Adelman 2005-09-09 12:10:14 UTC]

Can this be re-opened, please, as promised in comment #2? Thanks in advance.

[Comment 8 Vadim Kuznetsov 2005-09-09 14:04:09 UTC]

(In reply to comment #7)
> Can this be re-opened, please, as promised in comment #2? Thanks in advance.

There is a new one:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105187