I just installed the package and typed "squeak", and it didn't work.

I then looked at the script to see what it is trying to do, and it  
really is missing a lot compared to the script in the standard  
packages: it has no -l, it hardcodes the VM options to use, and it  
appears to have no support for actually installing an image locally.   
The latter means it is not really compatible with the image packages  
from the standard distro; it's not really very Linuxy to run Squeak as  
root and have all users share the same image file in /usr/share/squeak.

The VM itself looks pretty similar.  Is there any difference other  
than that yours disables the MPEG plugin?

I see that you added mime-type support; that's cool.  However, I don't  
see any desktop menu support.

Overall, your packages really are significantly behind.  Can you  
please explain why you have raced to upload from-scratch packages when  
there is already a mature effort?  You have not yet given any reason,  
and seem to be saying that whoever uploads first, wins.  That's not  
good for our users.

Really, there's a much better way to do all this.  Drop your packages  
and join Matej's and my effort.  I can't speak for him, but I'd for  
one be delighted to have a co-maintainer.  You have good ideas, but  
you're hampered by starting from so far behind.  What say you?

Lex



On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 AM, José Luis Redrejo wrote:
> After reading all your arguments I only can say the same I wrote in  
> my first email in this thread: I don't find anything else to do now  
> from my side. I also think that some of you haven't even checked the  
> package in Debian as some of the things you say to defend the use of  
> the squeak.org packages are done by the Debian package too (as the  
> script that works when typed itself or the Debian menu integration).  
> My main issue is that I don't want the users to have to use a script  
> to launch anything. With the Debian package they can click on a  
> squeak image (that appears with a Squeak icon on their desktops) and  
> open it, or launch squeak from the menus and have a graphical menu  
> to choose the image they want to use. The vm itself is exactly the  
> same, with the same bugs in Debian or in Squeak.org. So I don't see  
> any benefit of using the vm from Squeak.org in Debian, it would be a  
> backwards step. Obviously I'll be glad to receive patches to make it  
> a better package.
> As Matej said previously, the vm package in Squeak.org can be  
> improved.  I fully agree, and I also do think that we should merge  
> the package, but now the package in Debian is better from my point  
> of view: it is not incompatible with the images in squeak.org and  
> gives an easier experience to the non-technical users. I'm not  
> rejecting anything, I'm just saying that both packages are very  
> similar, almost the same, but the differences are still important  
> from my point of view and don't see any reason to upload to Debian  
> the vm from squeak.org, maybe the opposite would be more reasonable.
>
> Regards.
> José L.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090421/8ecc84f2/attachment.htm