sar or mcz?
philippe.marschall at gmail.com
Wed Dec 27 08:18:42 UTC 2006
2006/12/26, Alan Lovejoy <squeak-dev.sourcery at forum-mail.net>:
> I use a .sar for the Squeak version of Chronos, which is available on
> SqueakMap. One reason is simply that Avi still owns the Monticello-based
> Chronos package on SqueakSource, meaning I can't update it (and by the way,
> Avi only ever uploaded his very initial Chronos port, which will break your
> image unless you are using a Squeak version < 3.7.) But more relevant to
> this discussion is the fact that the "preamble" and "postscript" scripts in
> a .sar make it easy to optionally install some modules (or install different
> versions of the same module) based on the version of Squeak into which
> Chronos is being imported. I don't believe Monticello supports that
Monticello would actually support postscripts and preambles but the
Package-Info version in standard Squeak does not.
Personally I perfer MCZ because it is integrated in our build process.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:37 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: sar or mcz?
> Hi there,
> what kind of installable package files is the preferred one at the
> moment: .sar or .mcz? FYI, i want to automatically execute some code after
> loading the package. I found in a mailinglist, that in a .sar you can state
> this in install/postscript and in a .mcz you can use class-side startup:
> message. But .sars don't seem to be really used - am i right?
More information about the Squeak-dev