I am not convinced that the idea of two significantly different
audiences, with MC and without it, is that important. Why?

When MC loads mcv's, it can detect missing dependencies (for example, if
the mcv packaged code subclasses or extends a class defined by a
different package). Normal filing in (and DVS?) will create a wrongly
defined class in the first case, and walkback on the second. MC will
complain and leave the image clean, allowing the user to noticed the
missing dependencies and try again with no fuss.

This is a benefit to non-developers at least as much as to developers,
that is lost by using .st to file in MC packages. I think it outweighs
the cost of having MC installed automatically.

Daniel

Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> Or we could simply stuff both .mcv and .st in the SAR, and then have the
> SAR-Installer automatically do the right thing (use monticello if it is
> installed). 
> 
>    Marcus
> 
> -- 
> Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeak.de