Avi Bryant wrote:

>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).
>  
>

Avi, Goran and I discussed this further on the IRC channel just now, and 
it looks like we will just leave out DVS from the update stream, since 
it's not really essential for typical dvs-based package installs.

But I will add SqueakMap/SMLoader/SAR/PackageInfo as updates soon (today 
or tomorrow).  Then later we might add a sort of Monticello-light 
package format to the Basic release (as a replacement for DVS), but 
there's not a big hurry on that.

Also, Goran & I worked out a way so that 
SqueakMap/SMLoader/SAR/PackageInfo can be included in the update stream 
as actual static changesets, rather than a bootstrap, so we won't have 
the "moving target" problem.  But the image will still treat these 
packages as having been loaded from SqueakMap.

- Doug Way