On Mar 2, 2004, at 11:37 AM, ducasse wrote:

> hi colin
>
> I'm not sure that you would like that my code break when you load it :)
> So we have to use and learn.
> stef
>
>> On the other hand, for deployment you probably want to be a little 
>> more lenient about dependencies.

Well, no. Broken code is bad. ;-)

But still, I stand by that comment in the context it was written. I was 
talking about dependencies in Monticello, not SqueakMap. The two are 
very, very different things.

I've made the point before, and I'll make it again: Monticello is *not* 
a packaging system. It's a versioning system. Yes, it does version 
packages, and it does have some convenience features for publishing 
them, but building an image by locating, downloading and installing 
packages that don't conflict is SqueakMap's job.

So why does Monticello track dependencies? It's so that "applications" 
can be factored into several packages, while still being developed and 
versioned together. So, for example, when I load SqueakSource into my 
development environment, I know that I'm also getting the exactly 
version of Mewa that it was developed against. And since both are right 
there in my repository, that's not a problem.

SqueakMap is a different beast. When loading a package from SM, you 
don't need an exact match for the dependency. You just need one that 
works. I think Göran's scheme for figuring that out is quite elegant, 
and I can't wait until we have it up and running. Until then, we'll 
just have to make do without dependencies in SqueakMap. Using 
Monticello dependencies instead will only lead to problems like the one 
Hernan ran into.

Stéphane, this rant wasn't directed entirely at you. For some reason 
this issue seems to come up quite often, and produces confusion every 
time.

Cheers,

Colin