[squeak-dev] Re: Unix updates
José Luis Redrejo Rodríguez
jredrejo at debian.org
Thu Dec 17 08:29:07 UTC 2009
2009/12/16 K. K. Subramaniam <subbukk at gmail.com>
> On Wednesday 16 December 2009 11:47:50 pm José Luis Redrejo wrote:
> > b) has caused the current delay in Debian, because I've been waiting for
> > months, just in case anybody wants to help. I've already given up, so I
> > will upload the latest version before the end of this month. Before the
> > setting up of the collaborative project I kept the squeak-vm very
> > in Debian. In fact I used to compile it from svn, to get the latest
> > patches, trying to make the images work with the newest plugins.
> What do you think of the new launcher scripts - squeak and squeak.sh? Do
> have enough flexibility for a distro packager?
squeak.sh has the same problem I've discussed once again in this list for
the last four years: they are developer focused. I don't have anything
against a developer view, but I want the squeak packages being end-user
friendly. I'm very focused/biased on the educational uses of Squeak, and I
don't think a console script is a good idea these days.
I will integrate the changes these scripts have, so the one I use in the
package can be called from a terminal, but I want to keep the gnome/kde and
mime integration I added to the squeak-vm package.
> Building plugins is currently painful, I agree. Perhaps there should be two
> packages - squeakvm (runtime) and squeakvm-dev (plugin development).
The problem comes when new etoys images do need those plugins to work
properly, and they are just experimental works somebody does and nobody
> (branching this discussion to vm-dev)
I'm subscribed to vm-dev, so no cc'ed is needed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev