SqueakMap crashes in 3.10 beta.7158
ma.chris.m at gmail.com
Fri Nov 2 14:37:22 UTC 2007
On 11/1/07, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
C'mon Jason, I did that a long time ago. I just added a button to
Monticello Configurations browser called, "Build SAR". It makes a
one-click self-installing SAR.
It took all of about one hour to implement, and I knew nothing about
Monticello beforehand (still don't).
> 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.
So if it's always picking "the most up to date" branches are
unsupported then? If so, how is this "better"?
> 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.
Monticello already supports "upgrade". I see nothing new here.
> > What exactly does "guaranteed to work together" mean?
> > ...
> > how can it be said "guaranteed to work?"
> It's the same concept as they have with the Debian apt-get system,
I'm not familiar with that, so that doesn't mean anything to me.
> > 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? :)
I don't. That seems like a pretty chicken-shit thing to do. That has
little to do with the (SqueakMap) technology anyway? No software can
> > 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.
How can it be updated if no one has tried it? The fact that it is not
updated every time a new Squeak comes out is USEFUL because it means
it hasn't been tested.
Again, I ask you to define the meaning of "works". This is a non-issue.
> 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.
Sounds like the computer controlling the user. I only believe in the opposite.
It sounds like great legacy stuff like MorphicWrappers will never be
Ok, so for MorphicWrappers and other great stuff available on
SqueakMap, "Universes can't do it". Fine. I won't be using it.
More information about the Squeak-dev