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