[Framework-Team] hard dependency on PIL?

[Raphael Ritz]

Wichert Akkerman schrieb:
> Previously Raphael Ritz wrote:
>   
>> Up to now we have PIL as a soft dependency in Plone/AT
>> so the question is whether this change is intended or just
>> an oversite.
>>
>> As PIL isn't part of a standard Python distribution I personally
>> would prefer to keep this a soft dependency.
>>     
>
> Considering the amount of problems users report who don't have PIL
> installed and the fact image handling pretty much already requires it
> (esp. with the current kupus offering resized images) perhaps making
> PIL a hard dependency is worth it.
>
>   
For two reasons I'm not so sure:

1. PIL isn't necessarily the most trivial package to install
   and as of now be didn't require our users to fiddle with
  their Python installation (except for providing an appropriate
  version).

2. I do run sites we we didn't install PIL simply because
  we aren't specifically dealing with images on them.
  If I need PIL I do know how to install it but I would find
  it annoying if I would always have to install PIL simply
  to get Plone up and running even if I know I won't
  really benefit from the features provided through PIL.

But maybe that's just me ...

Raphael

> Wichert.
>
>