ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
[SNIP]
> > Because it goes straight against my coming plan for dependencies.
> > Dependencies should IMHO be specified *outside* of the packages in the
> > form of independent objects I like to call *package configurations*.
> 
> package configurations seems to me like envy config maps (apparently 
> the problems
> in envy config maps is that you could not reference to subapplication 
> versions) but
> I should ask joseph that kind of ugly envy stuff. your package 
> configurations look also as bundle in VW.
> I'm not expert in the fine pros and cons of both approaches but I hope 
> you know them.

Well, I have thought a lot about it and discussed it a hundred times
with people - though I don't remember my "Envy", too long ago. I think I
have a good plan. :)

> My point is that I already have my own script to rebuild my small 
> system but we cannot ask every body to
> rehack the same in his corner so any decent package mechanism has to 
> have version identification and it should work well
> else all our efforts to modularise squeak will fail. It was for example 

Note that scripts are NOT intended to be the major building block here.

> fun to see andreas wondering how
> to be able to load old package in Squeak. There is a simple scalable 

Missed that, where did he wonder that?

> solution to that problems: packages
> with version and configuration you know that I'm sure.
> 
> So I'm waiting to see SM 2

SM2.0 has releases/versions. But configurations are coming in 2.1.

And SM2 is just around the corner here...

regards, Göran