[squeak-dev] Re: squeak 4.1 download confusion for Unix,
David T. Lewis
lewis at mail.msen.com
Fri Apr 23 01:43:50 UTC 2010
Absolutely yes. But I think that this is a lot of real work, and it
requires knowledge of the various distributions to ensure working binary
packages as well as source packages. I doubt that any single person
can do this (I know that I cannot), so I think that it would require
a broader range of contributors focusing on the various distributions.
Bert is really much better informed on this than I am, and he has
also tried to make progress on this issue in the past. I would suggest
discussing it as a SOB topic, with Bert as the subject matter expert.
<slightly off topic>
My own personal opinion is that, given limited resources, I would
much prefer to see our energy directed towards managing Package
Universes properly. Package Universes are the Squeak equivalent
of Linux distributions, and we have done a horrible job of managing
them. If we cannot even do distribution management for our own
Squeak universe, then I'm not really sure why managing Linux
distributions should be a top priority. But maybe some new
contributors with solid Linux experience can make progress on
the Linux distributions, and if successful maybe we can learn
from the experiences and apply them to Squeak.
</slightly off topic>
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 06:03:00PM -0700, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Hi David -
> Check me on this, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to provide RPMs
> (or DEBs or whatever people use these days) and point the vast majority
> of users straight to "their" install? Just like we have a Windows
> installer, we should have Linux RPM and a Mac DMG, no?
> - Andreas
> On 4/22/2010 5:37 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:57:19PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> >>Going to squeak.org and following the download link for linux in the
> >>upper right puts you in http://ftp.squeak.org/4.1/unix-linux/. I don't
> >>think this is very friendly, especially for a newcomer, for the
> >>following reasons:
> >>1. There are multiple files and it's not clear which one(s) to get or
> >>what their different roles are.
> >>2. Some of the files have 4.0 in their names.
> >>3. One of the files, judging by the name, is for Darwin. I believe that
> >>is BSD, not Linux, based.
> >>If in the download section when clicks on the installation link, which
> >>in turn directs you to http://squeak.org/Documentation/Installation for
> >>Unix and http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616 for Debian.
> >>The former is only about the VM. The latter says to use a repository on
> >>squeak.org, but I thought that the current debs were going into mainline
> >>debian. (Maybe only for the VM).
> >>I have some suggestions:
> >>Change the "Download" section to "Get Squeak". The linux link takes you
> >>to a page recommending that you get if from your distribution, and then
> >>saying "If your distribution does not have squeak packaged, or if it
> >>does not have a current package, then you will need the following
> >>files..." And finally there should be links to the files.
> >>Ideally, the page would indicate what version was currently packaged in
> >>each distribution.
> >>Finally, here is my best guess about the numbered confusions above:
> >>1. One needs
> >>for the VM and http://ftp.squeak.org/4.1/unix-linux/Squeak4.1.zip for
> >>the image/changes. One only needs
> >>http://ftp.squeak.org/4.1/unix-linux/Squeak-126.96.36.1992-src.tar.gz to
> >>build the VM from source.
> >>Ignore the darwin file.
> >>2. The most current Unix VM's are 4.0. This still surprises me a bit,
> >>since I thought closures needed VM support and they are advertised as a
> >>4.1 feature. Maybe the necessary VM changes were already in place at
> >Ross, I don't know how to reduce the confusion, but I do want to explain
> >that the version levels of the VM are not, and should not be, the same
> >as those for the image. We made version labels for recent VMs that start
> >with "4" to give folks the idea that they more or less line up with the
> >Squeak 4.x images (and Pharo 1.x images also btw), but maybe that is just
> >leading to further confusion(?).
> >The ideal situation is that any version of the VM can run any version of
> >the image, and any image can run on any VM. Of course we cannot reach
> >the ideal, but there is still a good deal of independence between the
> >VMs and the images. This is a Good Thing.
> >>3. Ignore the darwin file. Should it be cleaned out/relocated, e.g., to
> >Maybe it should be in a "unix" folder instead of "unix-linux", but
> >there are so many people using Linux these days that some of them
> >might be confused if they had to look for their VM in a "unix" folder.
> >My guess would be that anyone loading a darwin VM already knows what
> >they are doing, and that most Mac users should be following the link
> >to the supported Mac VMs anyway.
More information about the Squeak-dev