SqueakMap crashes in 3.10 beta.7158

Jason Johnson jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 1 18:28:54 UTC 2007

On 11/1/07, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> SqueakMap supports SAR files, which can do *anything*.  Therefore it,
> too, supports dependencies.

By writing scripts?  In this case I think we can do better.  I mean,
if someone wanted to modify SM to expose some interface for adding
dependencies and then implement that interface by creating a script
inside the SAR then that's good enough.  Just not the ad hoc scripts
that are done today that fight with each other and so on.

Having full power is good, but in these cases when a common use case
is identified we should "DSL-ize" it imo, and that is basically what
you get with the Universes.

And by the way, I got in this thread only in reaction to your earlier
comment.  I don't want SM to be removed from the standard image
either.  There are plenty of other things that would be higher
priority imo.

> 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.

As explained in another mail, it doesn't do this.  If you add a
package to a universe, then add an upgraded version of that package to
the universe later, of course it picks the most up to date version
that you have claimed works.

I suppose you could argue that the act of adding the new version
should remove the old one from the universe, but I believe it is there
for the "upgrade" functionality.

> 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?"

It's the same concept as they have with the Debian apt-get system,
though obviously there are more people, and therefor more rigor in the
Debian system.

> 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
> developers only).

Doesn't everyone just pick "Full of bugs" so they don't get blamed if
it breaks? :)

> 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.

But the issue is that no one is updating and saying "yes this does
work in 3.9/3.10".  I have seen plenty of times where I read about
some package I should get, it's the latest version, so I go to SM and
it says the package is for 3.7.

The "advantage" of Universes is that nothing can be loaded until it's
put in the Universe, so no one can tell me to go load some package
without setting it up to be in 3.9/etc.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list