Ned Konz <ned at bike-nomad.com> wrote:
> 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.

But that would still require SAR support... :-) Old Squeaks are still
out of luck.

> > 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 

Ok, so this functionality is simply missing from the current Monticello?
 
> > 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)

Sounds fair.
 
> > 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 

Well, I was actually talking about adding support in SM for .mcv.

> 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).

Using SAR with such a stub still can't cater to old Squeaks.

regards, Göran