2010/4/8 Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se>

> Hi!
>
>
> Ralph Johnson wrote:
>
>> One of the "big ideas" of Package Universe is that a universe is only for
>> one version of the image.  In other words, there was a PU for 3.9 and one
>> for 3.11.  If you are going to use PU in 4.1 then you will have to set up a
>> universe for it.
>> The nice thing about thie idea is that within a universe, you can pretty
>> much expect all the packages to work together.  You con't have to search for
>> the right version to load.  You just say which packages you want, and the
>> system will load all the prerequisite packages, and get the right version of
>> each.
>>
>
> Yes, and my idea for "marrying" PU and SM was simply to create a new kind
> of "package" in SM which is a "Universe". Because if we disregard the
> tooling/UI etc - a Universe could be equal to a list of SM package releases
> that work fine in a given image. Simple as that.
>

Yes, that would be very valuable.


> Now, sure, we still need some rudimentary dependency mechanism - but I
> still am convinced that the above would work fine. Since SM allows assigning
> people as co-maintainers etc, a small group of people could maintain such a
> "list" together, and it would of course be independent of other such
> Universes etc.
>

And the other thing that PU provided was a dependency mechanism.  If  you
had both of those, you would eliminate the need for PU.


> The BIG upside of this is that the actual releases and packages are
> maintained ONCE, and not in two redundant places (SM and PU).
>

Yes.  And one of the problems with PU was that it causes people to stop
putting things in SM, so not only did PU never have a goal of having a
complete set of packages, but it detracted from SM reaching that goal.

-Ralph
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100408/5daf77b2/attachment.htm