Actually the idea of configurations (sets of package to load) is
definitely part of Goran roadmap (He's written about it on the list
before).

I think it'll probably turn out both pretty simple, and very, very
useful. 

One small problem with using scripts is composition - how do you handle
a script that loads two scripts, that have a shared requirement? with
scripts, you load it twice. Configurations should handle that better.

Daniel

Stephen Pair <spair at acm.org> wrote:
> Good...it sounds like the simplest thing that could possibly work.  It's
> important I think to keep these things nicely separated from packages (as
> they have the potential to grow permutationally with the number of
> packages).
> 
> - Stephen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of Ned
> Konz
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:03 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: DVS (thanks!) & SqueakMap thoughts
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 19 November 2002 07:05 pm, Stephen Pair wrote:
> 
> > Sure, but what I would like is to be able to put the various
> > packages on SqueakMap separately and then have "bundles" that are
> > essentially just scripts that load a set of packages in a specific
> > order.
> 
> That should be easy to do with plain ST fileins. The SqueakMap API
> lets you download and install packages easily. We've discussed doing
> this before to make 'image configurations' of various kinds that load
> a number of different packages in order.
> 
> >  It would also be nice if SqueakMap would let me
> > categorize these things separately from reqular packages.
> 
> It should be possible to add a "package format" category for these.
> 
> --
> Ned Konz
> http://bike-nomad.com
> GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE