3.6 "full" packages
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Mon Jul 28 00:22:42 UTC 2003
> What am I supposed to do to get my file to install in a changeset with
> a sensible name - ie the filename minus the .st extension?
I guess you don't. Note that using the recommended #fileInPackageNamed: will
end up with one gigantic CS containing everything (you can see this when you
install the updated B3D package).
> I've tried out monticello but it looks like you cannot load a mcv file
> unless you have moticello already installed, so that is clearly
> unnaceptable for a typical package unless MC is going to be in all
> images by default. Better yet I only loaded MC yesterday but
> already an update seems to require a newer version. Sheesh, I don't
> have much chance of getting this right it seems.
My frustrations exactly. I spent the whole day trying to figure out how to
use those mechanisms to no good effect. It seems that the deprecation of DVS
shows already and Monticello not being present and not being stable leaves
us with no reliable packaging mechanism short of change sets. Back to the
I finally gave up trying to do any sensible packaging for 3.6. You get what
you get. Recommend you do the same.
More information about the Squeak-dev