Unix VM isArray

Michael Roberts mike at mjr104.co.uk
Fri Apr 2 22:05:12 UTC 2004


On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 02:03:03PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
> Michael Roberts <mike at mjr104.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'd just like us to be able to document the exact steps that are needed to build the VM at any point in time.  This needs an FAQ entry.  I would also like to write a script that automates this.  This could then be run as a test to check that the VM can always be built the documented way.
> 
> There is a lot of documentation on building within the Unix source tree
> -- have you looked at platforms/unix/doc ?

Sorry, look I think I'm being misunderstood.  I was trying to help Peter because I have done this successfully in the past.  I have read all the documentation I have found, but I didn't know that the VMMaker package on SM wouldn't build the VM at the time I used it because I needed additional changes.  I might have compounded it by being on Ned's branch.  I don't know whether that VMMaker would have built the HEAD or not.. but the advice was to use ned's branch so I did.  What I didn't do was go to Tim's site to get the latest VMMaker.  Now I know. 

> 
> IMHO, there should be a difference between people who just want to
> compile the VM and people who want to work on it.  People who just want
> to compile it should *not* be pulling down CVS and running VMMaker etc.

Well ok.  It's not difficult to use CVS and learn how VMMaker works.  One just needs to know the correct versions and patches that need to be applied at any point.  What stumbled me was that updating everything inside the image wasn't enough.  
 
> They should grab a released source tarball and do "./configure; make" 

That would makes things easier, that's a good idea.

> Well, if you want 3.7 support today it is out of date.  

I don't think that it is unreasonable to have 3.7 VMs available otherwise how are we expecting people to use 3.7 since there was a point at the start of 3.7 where the previous VM couldn't run the image?

> My take on this is as follows.  I hope I am being fair, but I think this
> is correct.  Ian seems to have update cycles spanning approximately 1-2
> years.  When he does an update, it tends to include every outstanding
> patch or a reimplementation thereof, and it tend to be a great release
> to use.  0.5 years or so later it is often good to include one or
> another patch along with it.
> 
> Other arrangements are possible that may work better.  Ian has mentioned
> in the past the possibility of arranging someone else as the day to day
> maintainer of Squeak/Unix.  This may be a good idea to pursue, though
> I'm not sure how to set up the details.  The simplest way would be to
> name someone else as the maintainer and let Ian be the main contributor.
>  Sort of a producer/director setup.  :)  But there are other
> possibilities, I'm sure, if we are creative about it.

I think we at least need to have people able to run the latest image.

> 
> Also keep in mind that the project is open source.  Everyone can choose
> what they download and install, and anyone can post a file holding their
> prefered set of patches if they want.
> 
I'd just like to help people running Squeak on Unix.  That's really my only motivation here.

Cheers
Mike 





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list