Hi All,

edgar De Cleene wrote:
>> A standard "kernel image" that everyone builds
>> off of has long
>> been a pipe dream of nearly everyone in the community. I
>> believe
>> that such an image is not achievable in the short term;
>> convincing all of the squeak distributions to adopt it
>> would be
>> nearly impossible to adopt incrementally. 
>>
> 
> Such image exist and is MorphicCore of Pavel Krivanek.
> We should go towards this , removing packages from the top and reshaping packages if packages as we know today can't be unloades/loaded nicely
> 

OK, so then we have a minimal image. How then do we see it is used as 
the kernel for etoys, croquet, spoon, pharo, etc? I think Matthew's 
point is less about producing a minimal image and more about forks 
standardising on core packages incrementally until they eventually agree 
with each other on some notion of a kernel image.

If I understand correctly the images mentioned in this thread, 
SqueakLightII, MorphicCore etc would all be expected to adopt these 
standard packages.

My suggestion is that only an image which includes standard packages 
alone should be called a core image (and then only if one is needed? 
Would it be needed?). I'd reserve the term kernel image for the types of 
images Eliot and others are discussing.

- Zulq