[squeak-dev] Squeak Package Management

stephane ducasse stephane.ducasse at free.fr
Fri Jun 27 06:59:22 UTC 2008

I agree
For now within my app I use

And I load several such maps
So I should certainly use Configuration for that.


On Jun 26, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Damien Pollet wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Matthew Fulmer <tapplek at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> SqueakMap: Packages are out-of-date, because the security model
>> does not allow anyone to maintain the package; also, there are
>> no dependencies
>> Universes addressed the dependency issue, but still does not
>> allow widely distributed maintenance of the packages. So far,
>> it is kept mostly up-to-date, due to a few motivated
>> individuals.
>> Sake/Packages is an attempt to address both of the above
>> concerns. It as yet has no UI. Unlike in SM or Universes, the
>> entire distribution is versioned as a whole, rather than the
>> individual packages, so editing one package means making a new
>> distribution version. This makes it easy to specify exactly what
>> version of the database your image is up-to-date with, but does
>> not scale if there are many contributions.
> I don't see the point of having completely separate tools/websites for
> code management (SqueakSource/MC) and package management (all others).
> I want to configure an image as a user, then decide that I want to
> contribute on such package, and upgrade it to the devel snapshot with
> the same tool.
> Package management and code version control are really the same thing,
> just at different levels of granularity.
> As a developer, you want the bleeding edge version of the code most of
> the time, but also need flexibility (load older versions, branches,
> bypass dependancies). You do need dependancies if only for the
> documentation value (it's always a pain when code is split in several
> packages and you have to checkout each of them manually).
> As a user, you want no hassles, ie. a complete and up-to-date package
> set with dependancies between stable blessed versions that work. Also,
> feature-oriented rather than code-oriented packages, ie. Seaside
> instead of all the dozen actual class categories.
> Of course these are just two points somewhere in a continuum: paranoid
> users will only use bare major release images, power-users will want
> more recent packages at the price of more frequent updates and less
> stability. Even developers are only developers for a subset of their
> image and users for all the rest.
> So for me, SqueakSource with practical dependancies and the
> possibility to make actual releases would be the best. Maybe the
> dependancy/release handling can be done by merging SM  or
> Sake-Packages metadata into MC snapshots, but I do believe that it
> should be a single integrated application.
> -- 
> Damien Pollet
> type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list