On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 21:54 +0200, Claus Kick wrote:
> Keith Hodges wrote:
> >>
> > Having tried Hg, I have found Bzr to be preferable.
> > 
> > Hg doesnt have a lightweight checkout, Bzr does. i.e. you can deploy the 
> > latest, without the whole history.
> > 
> > I have setup a public (ish) bzr server at bzr.warwick.st with 160Gb of 
> > space. We will be using this for managing and distributing the results 
> > of automated image builds in the near future.
> 
> Just trying to bring everything back to the core question:
> What about having something like CPAN (with a CPAN installer) for Squeak?
> 
> I am trying to follow the discussions, but to me it seems as if this 
> central question is not really discussed.
> 
> Instead, there are interesting topics, like Squeak-To-SVN, 
> advantages/disadvantages of other Versioning Tools (whose names I have 
> not even heard, was in ENVY/Manager, SVN and ClearCase land too long it 
> seems), nameing and so on...
> 

> What about the central question?
> What about having something like CPAN (with a CPAN installer) for Squeak?
> 
What makes you think CPAN is a good solution or appropriate for squeak?
For me CPAN means a lot of things. Maybe you should go into detail about
it to show the good things that would be valuable for squeak.

I personally read a lot of good points in the discussion what could be
appropriate for squeak. Especially the tension not to build another tool
but to enhance/migrate the existing ones.

Norbert