SqueakMap crashes in 3.10 beta.7158
ma.chris.m at gmail.com
Thu Nov 1 01:51:00 UTC 2007
SqueakMap supports SAR files, which can do *anything*. Therefore it,
too, supports dependencies.
To me, the process of building an image is something that always needs
to be done with care. A tool that tries to pick "the most recent
versions" of prerequisite packages, to me, is "gunslinger" style of
building an image.
What exactly does "guaranteed to work together" mean? This is a
notion I never really followed about Universes. Does it simply mean
what SqueaMap already tells us? That neither of the packages does any
modifications to the base image? "Work" has different means for
different people depending on the needs. If loading one package
causes a slow-down in the performance of the other that matters to me,
how can it be said "guaranteed to work?"
This is why I used the strong word "misguided". It is not intended as
a criticism of the technology, maybe more of the marketing..
> the intention being universes is to have a kind of certified release
> which is really valuable.
By "certiifed" do you mean an assessment of the level of quality? If
so, SqueakMap has this too ("Solid as a rock" ... "Full of bugs for
> Since lot of squeakmap packages do not indicate really if they work
> on not in a given version.
A given version of Squeak? Yes it does. They all indicate what
versions of Squeak they are for, and when you load it you get a
warning if your version of Squeak does not match, but still allowing
to proceed at your risk.
On 10/31/07, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > SqueakMap is a great Squeak legacy and
> > allows stuff to be loaded into a clean image. Universes, to me,
> > sounds a bit misguided, and far from making rendering SqueakMap
> > obsolete.
> I'm confused here. As far as I know:
> SqueakMap is a tool that allows one to load a package into an image
> Universes is a tool that allows one to load a package into an image,
> but is more sophisticated (e.g. understands dependencies).
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, because by that definition SqueakMap
> appears to be clearly obsolete from a technical point of view.
> Note, I'm only speaking to your statement about Universes being
> misguided and not rendering SqueakMap obsolete. The nostalgia of SM
> and the purpose it serves as a record of anything ever done in Squeak
> are a separate concern.
More information about the Squeak-dev