Takahiro Kambe writes:
 > Thanks for your great figure for plone/zope package.
 > I have one comment:
 > 
 > - make www/plone and www/zope contain only sub makefiles; plone.mk,
 >   zope.mk or products.mk.  This is analog of lang/python package's
 >   way.
 > 
 >   Or, make www/plone and www/zope to meta-package which depends on
 >   default www/ploneXX and www/zopeXX.
 > 
 > I don't think that it is better www/plone or www/zope directly
 > contains specific release.

I agree, the zope and plone packages should not contain a specific
release.  Following the python model would be fine.  I was only
thinking that it might be useful for them to install whatever version
was determined by the logic embedded in the mk/zope.mk or mk/plone.mk
files.  That would provide a simple handle for installing a standard
zope or plone package.  It may be simpler to just have those be
placeholders for makefile fragments, though.

What is the next step?  Should there be a greater consensus that this
is reasonable?  Should the ideas be fleshed out further or are they
sufficiently detailed to be useful?  For example, does there need to
be some discussion of how the dependencies are recorded in variables
like ZOPE_VERSION_REQUIRED?  Is that a list of discrete versions?  Is
it a dewey-type range?  Finally, is anyone able to implement some of
this?

Cheers,
Brook