Aye, just what I expected ;-) Bye-bye all UI Enhancement dev universe versions... I guess if anyone has a problem they'll post here and can be given advice (migrate to Polymorph).

Regards, Gary.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Cassou" damien.cassou@gmail.com To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Updating Universe

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Gary Chambers gazzaguru2@btinternet.com wrote:

...

Just wondering if it is a good or bad idea to remove older versions of packages from the (dev) universe? Particularly for UI Enhancements since it has been renamed to Polymorph.

Don't want to cause anyone trouble but the (essentially obsolete) older versions seem like they may be confusing, given that only one of the two sets (Polymorph *or* UI Enhancements) should be loaded at any time.

The rule is to never remove a package from the Universe so that people can update their image without problem. But if I were you, I would delete it :-).

-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Damien Cassou wrote:

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Gary Chambers gazzaguru2@btinternet.com wrote:

...

Just wondering if it is a good or bad idea to remove older versions of packages from the (dev) universe? Particularly for UI Enhancements since it has been renamed to Polymorph.

Don't want to cause anyone trouble but the (essentially obsolete) older versions seem like they may be confusing, given that only one of the two sets (Polymorph *or* UI Enhancements) should be loaded at any time.

The rule is to never remove a package from the Universe so that people can update their image without problem. But if I were you, I would delete it :-).

Hm. I'm having the same problem. There are simply too many (broken) pieces of Balloon3D floating around in the various universes. The "never delete" rule certainly feels silly for something that is under development - we can't realistically expect people to never make mistakes or change their mind.

Technically speaking, how does one delete anything from a universe?

Cheers, - Andreas

Hi -

Maybe someone can help me with this. I was trying to put up a reconciled version of Balloon3D into the 3.10 universe and I can't get it to work. Originally there were a bunch of Balloon3D packages registered in universes. Trying to remove them failed as I am not the listed author, so I thought I'll ignore that for the moment and just publish a new version that people can use for testing. No luck - apparently only the owner can post new versions of the package. Okay, so I asked the listed owner if he could remove the packages for me so that I could simply publish the package from scratch. Which he did, but even so, I cannot publish a package by the name "Balloon3" - all I get is an error saying "Error: adding package Balloon3D failed (package is owned by another)".

Any ideas? I'm kinda stuck here.

Cheers, - Andreas

Damien Cassou wrote:

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de wrote:

...

Technically speaking, how does one delete anything from a universe?

open the universe editor, select a package and click 'remove package version'.

On Jan 19, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Damien Cassou wrote:

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de wrote:

...

Maybe someone can help me with this. I was trying to put up a reconciled version of Balloon3D into the 3.10 universe and I can't get it to work. Originally there were a bunch of Balloon3D packages registered in universes. Trying to remove them failed as I am not the listed author, so I thought I'll ignore that for the moment and just publish a new version that people can use for testing. No luck - apparently only the owner can post new versions of the package. Okay, so I asked the listed owner if he could remove the packages for me so that I could simply publish the package from scratch. Which he did, but even so, I cannot publish a package by the name "Balloon3" - all I get is an error saying "Error: adding package Balloon3D failed (package is owned by another)".

Any ideas? I'm kinda stuck here.

Only Lex Spoon can control who owns what. I forward him this email.

Is there anyone who can take over hosting the universe server? As important as this area is to me, it doesn't pay the bills, and I have ended up with too much else going on to really maintain the ongoing universe servers. I do take care of them eventually, but I'm lagging 1-3 weeks.

It's a simple server to run if you have an Internet-accessible host. It runs out of a Squeak image, saves its database to disk, and needs to write into a directory that is reachable by HTTP. There's a DNS name that would need to be repointed at your server. The main administrative issue is dealing with resetting ownership like in this case, which currently requires opening some inspectors and hacking around. This would be a good task for anyone wanting experience with Squeak networking, or for anyone who wants to help out the Squeak community.

If anyone wants to take a nibble before committing, take a try at running a completely new server, first. See "Setting up a Local Mixin Universe" at the bottom of this page:

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3785

As a terminology note, Andreas, I'm not sure, but it sounds like you updated the "development" universe, not the 3.10 one. The "3.10" universe is released and is intended to be an unchanging base of future, non-kernel development:

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-March/127273.htm...

-Lex

2009/1/20 Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de:

Damien Cassou wrote:

...

Only Lex Spoon can control who owns what. I forward him this email.

Thanks. I decided that rather than wait for the issue to be resolved I'll just change the name to something sufficiently similar and went with Balloon-3D. And lo and behold! That worked ... or so I thought. The image that I used to publish the package showed it nicely in the PU browser but when I went to a different image the package wasn't listed. As a matter of fact, when I went back to the image I published it from and did an "update list from the net" it didn't show either.

AFAIK you simply have to wait until it appears.

Cheers Philippe

Andreas Raab wrote:

Damien Cassou wrote:

...

Only Lex Spoon can control who owns what. I forward him this email.

Thanks. I decided that rather than wait for the issue to be resolved I'll just change the name to something sufficiently similar and went with Balloon-3D. And lo and behold! That worked ... or so I thought. The image that I used to publish the package showed it nicely in the PU browser but when I went to a different image the package wasn't listed. As a matter of fact, when I went back to the image I published it from and did an "update list from the net" it didn't show either.

Help! What I am doing wrong? Are there some noob/dummy instructions for people like myself who really have zero intention to read the code for finding out how to use the tools?

Cheers,

• Andreas

When Sake/Packages generates its definitions from Universes it ignores $- !

Keith

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Damien Cassou damien.cassou@gmail.com wrote:

The rule is to never remove a package from the Universe so that people can update their image without problem. But if I were you, I would delete it :-).

There are two problems with this rule. The obvious one is that the universe gets lots of obsolete versions of packages, and that makes browsing them hard in the Universe browser. This problem can be fixed by a better browser.

The bigger problem is that it encourages people to live in their image and to depend on updates to fix problems. After many years of Smalltalk programming, I decided to throw away my current image every week and to build a new one. I make sure I can file out all my code and can build a new image from a released image. I know that this cannot be done with the base image. But I think Squeak would be better if it were possible to build a new image from scratch. Unfortunately, that won't happen soon, but I can at least keep any applications I work on from falling into the same problem.

I would not go so far as to claim that Package Universe should delete the ability to perform updates. But I would say that all old versions can be thrown away, and that people should not expect to be able to update a year old image without breaking something. After all, instead of updating a package, they can just load in a new version.

-Ralph

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Ralph Johnson johnson@cs.uiuc.edu wrote:

There are two problems with this rule. The obvious one is that the universe gets lots of obsolete versions of packages, and that makes browsing them hard in the Universe browser. This problem can be fixed by a better browser.

There is already a browser which displays the package versions nicely (using 3 panes as with a code browser).

The bigger problem is that it encourages people to live in their image and to depend on updates to fix problems. After many years of Smalltalk programming, I decided to throw away my current image every week and to build a new one. I make sure I can file out all my code and can build a new image from a released image. I know that this cannot be done with the base image. But I think Squeak would be better if it were possible to build a new image from scratch. Unfortunately, that won't happen soon, but I can at least keep any applications I work on from falling into the same problem.

I'm not sure I understand. What is the problem with the squeak-dev images? I build them exactly for this purpose. When I work on a project, I commit to SqueakSource and change the base image at least every week (often every day). IIRC, at netstyle they change their image everyday and new images are built automatically each night.

I would not go so far as to claim that Package Universe should delete the ability to perform updates. But I would say that all old versions can be thrown away, and that people should not expect to be able to update a year old image without breaking something. After all, instead of updating a package, they can just load in a new version.

-Ralph

Deleting now... update failure to be reported here!

Regards, Gary.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Philippe Marschall" philippe.marschall@gmail.com To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Updating Universe

2009/1/14, Gary Chambers gazzaguru2@btinternet.com:

...

Just wondering if it is a good or bad idea to remove older versions of packages from the (dev) universe? Particularly for UI Enhancements since it has been renamed to Polymorph.

Don't want to cause anyone trouble but the (essentially obsolete) older versions seem like they may be confusing, given that only one of the two sets (Polymorph *or* UI Enhancements) should be loaded at any time.

+1

I can't imagine a reason why you'd want to load an older version. If the latest in the universe is broken it doesn't belong into the universe. Also I'm not sure that not removing old versions is compatible with the mission statement of universes. Since all packages in a universe are supposed to work together that would then have to be extended to all possible combinations of versions of packages.

Cheers Philippe