Yes, yu're right, but make two releases: one with the frameworks separate
(the developer's release :-) ) and a bundled one that the average users can
use directly. Makes it really easy to ship on a CD and let people use
without installation instructions; copying the VM is enough.

And, I'll check this, but I think that you can move the frameworks out of a
bundle using the inspector (command-I on a file). You can at least see them
:-) But I'll look at this...

On 03/07/01 18:55, "Aaron" <reic0024 at d.umn.edu> wrote:

> Roel Wuyts wrote:
> 
>> Regarding the one binary distribution (so that people do not have to move
>> the frameworks around): are 'bundles' a solution ? I thought they could be
>> used to package an application with its frameworks as (seemingly) one
>> application ? That way the VM and its frameworks could be bndled as one
>> application, while retaining the frameworks itself, I think.
> 
> My understanding is that when the frameworks are included in a single
> Framework + App bundle, the frameworks aren't available to the rest of
> the system.  This in and of itself isn't totally bad, seeing how usually
> only the VM as you
> interact with it would use the frameworks.  But as Marcel was saying,
> there are a lot of cool things that can be done with the frameworks, so
> tying them to the
> traditional VM interface (that is, start up an image, interact with it)
> would be a shame.
> 
> Unless the VM was packaged as an App + Frameworks bundle, users will
> still have to move the two Squeak frameworks to ~/Library/Frameworks or
> /Library/Frameworks.  A binary only release just wouldn't also include
> source
> like the current Mac OS X VM distribution does.
> 
> Aaron
>