Update stream vs. SM packages (was: RE: [ANN] Squeak 3.5 released)

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Sun Apr 13 21:13:37 UTC 2003

"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Bert wrote:
> > If you want to avoid referring to changeset numbers (which 
> > IMHO is not a worthy goal) then you should bump up the
> > tertiary version number *each time* you put a bunch of
> > updates in the stream.
> Actually that raises an interesting opportunity. Right now we have
> essentially two independent mechanisms for "publishing code" - SqueakMap and
> the update stream. What if the two would get unified? What if we would
> simply include minor versions and post these as packages on SqueakMap? We

Hmmm, I think I would rather go in the direction of Debian in this
By this I mean that SqueakMap should hold package releases and not
really "deltas".

But when we have package releases (versions of packages) we can add
dependency management (and as I have written I have a simple but
flexible scheme I want to try) and then we get the same end user effect.

Debian has this today and you can selectively update parts of the system
and apt-get (think SM) makes sure you stay within working

> What do you think?

Well, I need more time to write more on this. Tomorrow. :-) Gotta jump
to bed.

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list