There's another relevant kind of reasoning -
A user of a Monticello package (say B3D) might choose to become a
developer of that Monticello package, and they should do so using MC,
and this should be as easy as possible. This suggests silently loading
Monticello when the first package that uses it is loaded. This is what
Ned did for SAR and IIRC Goran said he'll do for plain SM.

Developers that then want to make a clean image that includes B3D but
doesn't include it would of course unload it after they finish using it.
I don't see why "mere squeak user" should mind very much that MC gets
silently loaded. Do you?

Daniel

Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > If all you want to do is load a package into an image, Monticello  
> > provides an "export" command that does a conventional fileout of the  
> > package. You can post that on SM or stick it in a sar as usual. That  
> > said, Monticello isn't really a packaging tool. It's a versioning tool,  
> > which may not be what you're looking for.
> 
> All I'm looking for is something really simple: A way of shipping a package
> so that people who receive it a) are not required to have any particular
> package (be that DVS or Monticello or whatever) before they can even look at
> it and b) those people who do have the particular package are capable of
> loading it into their existing environment.
> 
> Reasoning: If you are a just a mere Squeak user you will probably not care
> very much about what particular packaging/versioning system I have used, so
> I don't want to bother people with it. Those who do development with or in
> the package I am shipping I want to be able to tell "well, if you want to
> make sure that the latest version doesn't just kill whatever you did, please
> load XYZ".
> 
> As far as I am aware Monticello doesn't support both. You can either ship
> the .mcv, violating point a) or you can do an export, violating point b).
> Please, *PLEASE* tell me that I'm wrong.
> 
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas