[squeak-dev] Re: Updated trunk image (Squeak3.11-8472-alpha.zip)

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sun Dec 13 20:40:02 UTC 2009

Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> On 12/13/09 8:13 AM, "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It will be very useful to see, what of external packages, you think
>> worth maintaining, is broken in new micro-release, so we can deal with
>> that either by updating that package, or by making trunk changes more
>> friendly & compatible.
> Ok, It's what I asking for.
> For remove packages I stick with the original Ralph vision

I think that's the wrong approach. Images build on top of the core 
should generally *add* things, not remove them. If the packages are not 
required in the core they should be removed from it and then be added 
back at the next level up.

In other words, if you have packages that we can safely remove from the 
core images, we should remove them, and put them back via build script 
into the "standard" image.

> " ReleaseBuilderFor3dot11 new unloadSomeMore"
> #('SMLoader' 'SMBase'  'ScriptLoader' 'Universes' 'Installer'  )

These are excellent candidates. However, we must make sure that we can 
load them back, and we *should* load them back in the standard image.

> As where put the packages.
> In squeaksource if his authors care or any wish maintain

This sounds as if we would suddenly stop supporting Squeakmap or 
Universes or Installer. I am *not* in favor of that. That's why we need 
to have the discussion about what is in the "standard" Squeak image. I 
would argue that Installer, Squeakmap, Universes belong in the standard 
image for the time being; but they don't belong in the core image. As a 
consequence, we should keep them in the trunk repository.

   - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list