MLH@goathill.org said:
> 1) most of the zope packages that do not require one to compile shared
> libraries don't need a particular version of Zope wither than '2'. Is
> there really a need to prefix those packages with zope2x- ?  How about
> just zope2- ? 

This looks like a good idea.
Well, I didn't know much about the Zope roadmap and compatibility
issues when I imported the zope25 pkg. (I was just looking for a testbed
for multithreaded Python at first. Due to feedback and possible use
in an internal www server the project grew a bit...)
So I was as conservative as possible, and I didn't want to step onto
the feet of people still using Ty's old zope pkgs.
As it looks now, the Zope-2 line of releases promises to be quite
upwards-compatible.
Zope3 will be _very_ different, so we should also allow coexistence
between zope2 and zope3 for migration.
So using the "zope2" prefix universally, and also installing into a
"zope2" subdirectory looks like the way to go.

One problem I'd like to solve in a clean way before importing zope2-2.6.1:
migration from GNU pth to native threads (on -current). All the pkgs using
mk/pthread.mk suffer from breakage if libraries using pth are still around
but the new pkg gets compiled against libpthread.
As long as there is a number of serious issues with Python and native threads,
we need pth, so we can't switch immidiately.
We have to make sure that any extension for a pth-Python still gets compiled
against pkg-pth, even if native libpthread is present.
This is still an open issue.

> What about retiring www/zope and www/zope-confera?

With the "zope2" scheme, these are not directly in the way.
I'd leave the decision to Ty.

> What to call the pkgsrc pkg?
> zope2-OCSybaseDA ?

The "DA" suffix seems usual... OK!

best regards
Matthias