Tweak or Etoys 1.0 as upper layer of the next Full Image? (was Re:
[V3dot9] Another try for pre-gamma: #7051)
Markus Gaelli
gaelli at emergent.de
Fri Aug 4 08:16:50 UTC 2006
On Aug 4, 2006, at 9:33 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:
>>> NBut honestly don't regard this is a "basic" image... it has lots
>>> and lots of stuff in it that is not needed, FFI is just one of
>>> these.
>>> We will not do a "full" image this time (people can just install
>>> the packages they want, and a 'full' image would have needed
>>> to be done and tested months ago).
>>>
I agree.
>>> So just consider it to be the new "full" image...
I don't.
>>
>> So it's back to kitchen-sink. How disappointing. How very, very
>> disappointing.
>
So whereas I value a lot the work of Marcus and Co. doing a basic
image, I also do not agree calling this image a "full one".
On the other hand I think Marcus was provocative to find out who is
willing to produce a "full one" right now.
For doing so we need to agree, if it is Tweak or whatever, to be
integrated.
For that, I think we need to know, where squeakland is heading: Will
they use tweak for Etoys 2.0 or not?
In my opinion the goals of squeakland always defined the upper layer
of Squeak.
Or is it Squeakland waiting for squeak-dev, and squeak-dev waiting
for squeakland? Catch22...
My 2 cents,
Markus
>
> I do not understand what you are saying. Don't we make progress?
>
> For the moment we want to create a **stable** and robust image.
> After that people can really try to remove packages. You know very
> well that this is a difficult task. So we will remove FFI. I will
> certainly have a look at other packages that can be easily removed.
> Now do not hesitate to participate, we cannot harvest all the fixes
> as we did alone and shrink the image....
> and more....
> I think that smart people understand the value of what we have been
> doing over the last year. I would have loved to do more but so far
> this is what we could.
>
> Stef
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|