3.6 full packages?

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Mon Oct 4 14:14:30 UTC 2004


Hi!

"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Goran,
> 
> > Now... you may recall a discussion we had in Stockholm over a beer
> > regarding immutability etc? ;)
> 
> I do, but I think it'd be more worthwhile to have the packages in full be 
> redistributed alongside the basic image so that if people want to they can 
> easily upgrade their basic to full image (incidentally I wouldn't mind a 
> full snapshot of SM either - just something so that it's very clear which 
> version has been used and where to get it).

Today we *can* do this - but we haven't done it yet. We can distribute a
preloaded client cache in the zip etc. This has been the intention *all
along*. I have even posted a snippet earlier how to preload the cache
etc. It is just 10 lines of code or such. I have always argued for a zip
with the smallest image in it and then a map + a preloaded cache so that
you can easily "fatten" that image to a Full or other.

> >> though there were some very strange oddities: If
> >> you take a 3.6 and open the package loader it tries
> >> to update SqueakMap (and miserably fails if you say yes)
> >
> > It does? (checking...) Hmmm, just tried a 3.6-basic 5424 - worked for
> > me.
> 
> I just tried it again and now it worked. Odd indeed. Could this be related 
> to some sm cache not being deleted?

Hmmm, well - SqueakMap takes a look in the "sm" dir for the map file. If
it is there and it is newer than the instance in the image it is loaded
into the image etc. It is the file called map.xxx.sgz (gzipped export
imagesegment, xxx being the highest number).
 
> >> but if you don't it gives you a series of
> >> releases which don't even show if you go to SM in the browser.
> >> Very, very odd.
> >
> > Not odd to me :) - if you say no... it can't update the map.
> > So you are looking at an old map. Perhaps it should warn though.
> 
> But then, why are the versions in the old map no longer present in the new 
> map? Say, if I look at the old map I see VMMaker as version 3.6g (with a URL 
> which later results in a 404) whereas in a "new" map I see versions 3.7b4 
> and 3.7b5 but *not* 3.6g. And please note that this map comes from the same 
> server so I would expect some amount of consistency here.

Eh... well, before I added releases to SM there was only a "current"
version in there. My memory is week, but if versions were altered after
the 3.6 release and before the new SM - then the versions in 3.6 would
not be in the current map. When I migrated I could (obviously) only
remember the version current as of that day.

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

cheers, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list