lex at cc.gatech.edu
Wed Mar 16 14:03:57 UTC 2005
I have delayed my response due to outstanding levels of work at school.
I'll be more responsive in two weeks!
The general strategy of having a set-of-packages as an item on SqueakMap
sounds fine. That strategy solves the most important goals, which IMHO
are in order:
1. have a way to manage sets of packages and thus produce stable
2. have a way to auto-load dependencies
Other achievements of Universes might be harder to map over, but even
so, I can't say no to someone volunteering their time to keep this
going, even if it loses some of the other nicities. Whenever thoes
goals are met in SqueakMap, I'd be happy to help with migrating the
existing stable and development universes over to the new mechanisms.
While I think the universes model gives an impressive number of
properties for its simplicity, I can't say no to someone volunteering to
spend their time on keeping this all going.
As one nitpick, maybe 1 version of each package seems fine for stable
releases but might not be enough for a development universe. I find
that as stable as Debian's "unstable" is, I still download an occasional
broken package. It is nice if the model allows more than one package to
be available so that people can back up in this case. Even so, Avi's
general observation seems to remain: dependencies are simpler, due to
there being very few versions of each package to choose from.
PS -- a number of people have objected to the name "universe". Feel
free to pick a different name, Goran, especially if the thing it names
is somewhat different from a classical package universe.
More information about the Packages