Squeak as Linux and other threads

Lex Spoon lex at cc.gatech.edu
Tue May 20 08:25:08 UTC 2003


> Anyway, I'm sure if someone thought about it a little more, they could 
> come up with some improvements on this naming scheme.  But the bottom 
> line is that I'd like my primary way of referencing a package to be name 
> based *and* hierarchical (the hierarchical part is going to be necessary 
> if we are going to allow people to eventually host their own package 
> name domains).

You don't need hierarchical to handle multiple repositories -- just mash
them all together, and have the one in first listed repository win. 
Also, note that people can insert hierarchy themselves, e.g. Mines.Board
is the package that handles the board for MineSweeper, even though the
tools don't know anything about it.

Also, I'm not sure we want repositories to get linked in automatically. 
Having a few central repositories works well.  Packages really need to
exist in the context of some greater system, anyway, and to work in
different systems they need to be tweaked into slightly different
packages.

To beat the horse again, the Debian people have no problems at all
hosting non-standard repositories whenever they want to, e.g. the one
that has the Squeak packages.

Now there might be other reasons to use hierarchical package names....

Lex



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list