package universes and filters question
Lex Spoon
lex at cc.gatech.edu
Tue Aug 10 20:50:39 UTC 2004
Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:
> > "Hey! Where did you find that? Oh, I didn't know about *that*
> > server.... Hmmm, it isn't up now, do you have a copy you can email
> > me?"
>
> We could avoid that: having found any server in the network, a user
> would find out which other servers provide access to the desired
> artifact.
I don't suggest this for the universes themselves. It sounds fine for
the packages, but not for the *sets* of packages.
A universe is supposed to be a collection of packages that are
configured consistently and which have been tested with each other.
Packages that are not in a universe are missing for a reason. The
problem with browsing around the net and offering the user whatever
packages you see, is that you have no assurance that the packages are
compatible.
Everyone seems to assume I want regular users to have a list of 20
different mini-universes that they merge together. No. I want the
architecture to *allow* multiple universes. I am picturing that most
people would use either the standard unstable universe, or one of the
stable release universes. It's just icing that people can arrange things
in a lot of other ways should they desire.
-Lex
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|