3.6 "full" packages
ned at bike-nomad.com
Mon Jul 28 17:03:11 UTC 2003
On Monday 28 July 2003 10:43 am, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> If I understand this correctly Monticello has it's own format that
> can not be loaded without Monticello being installed (sounds fair)
Though we could make a stub that would do a reasonable job of it.
> and can also export a package in simple .st format - but such a
> file can only be filed in normally without any of the nice
> Monticello functions, unlike DVS which could do "intelligent"
> installation of a .st file. Right?
No, we could (and should!) load those .st files in the same way as
DVS. However, we should
> First of all - is it really that important to be able to install a
> package in an old Squeak? If you want to cater to old Squeaks - why
> not simply offer a .st fileout too? An old Squeak wouldn't know how
> to do an intelligent upgrade of an installed package anyway.
> Regarding silently installing packages: NO. Please NO. I know that
> people are sick of me talking about the upcoming SM
No, you've just got us "quivering with anticipation" (to quote Dr.
Frank N. Furter).
> but we should
> NOT install prereqs silently. And we should NOT have such logic in
> loadscripts. But I know - as long as SM1.1 isn't here people are
> allowed to cheat. Just don't get used to it.
I have added support in the SARInstaller for asking if the user wants
to load DVS or Monticello to deal with those formats. Is this a bad
idea? (no automatic loading)
> And finally: What should I do? It sounds like I should add
> installation support in SM of course. If someone has an SMInstaller
> whipped up I am happy to receive it. Otherwise I can possibly fudge
> it myself.
I think my stub idea is the best. Rather than loading another package
into the image, make it the responsibility of the distributor to
ensure loadability (using SARBuilder would be the easy way; I have to
update it too).
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
More information about the Squeak-dev