On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Doug Way wrote:

> But I think we have a number of packages on SqueakMap that currently
> rely on DVS?  (Or is PackageInfo sufficient?)  Well, my understanding is
> that they can usually be installed without DVS, but if DVS is not
> available then methods may not get removed properly.  Perhaps this is
> good enough, I'm not sure.

They can certainly be installed without DVS, since a DVS fileOut looks
exactly like a normal fileOut.
They won't get automagically updated if you install a new version over an
old one, unless DVS is present.  But since none of the other packages on
SqueakMap do this, this doesn't seem that big a deal to me (when this
feature is crucial is when you're doing team development on a package, but
when installing packages from SM I tend to start from a clean image
anyway).

> Perhaps if we add DVS to the base image it could be considered a "useful
> default implementation" rather than a "standard"? :-)  Does DVS also
> include a bunch of CVS-specific junk that we don't want?

Well, what it includes is a bunch of stuff for parsing and analyzing
fileOuts, producing changesets from the differences between them, etc.
Again, I don't think this is terribly useful for pulling in packages from
SM.

> >(PackageInfo named: 'Foo') fileOutOnStream: (FileStream fileNamed: '...')
>
> Would something like this be in a separate PackageInfoGoodies package
> which could go in the base image so that we could leave out DVS?

That #fileOutOnStream: method I would think should be in the
base PackageInfo package.  Some UI that uses it, yes, that could be in a
Goodies package.