> So far I'm quite happy with the base image being monolithic. I'd  
> like loadable packages to be used for optional stuff. What would be  
> the benefit of splitting the base system that way? How long would it  
> take to have a usable system again?

I wasn't thinking of making the image non-monolithic, merely defining  
some useful architectural boundaries tidying it up a bit.

In this thought I am suggesting that a monolithic image that contains  
packages which can be removed or improved, can be functionally  
equivalent to a kernel image that you need to load things into to be  
useful. The monolithic image is  far easier to distribute and discuss.

I thought you would approve on the basis that System has a lot of  
optional stuff. If we had a package management system (I have  
christened it Simplercello in anticipation) then tools such as the  
Transcript, Workspace etc, would be candidates for management in an  
external package.

My first project is to implement the "multiple update streams" concept  
envisaged by gorans DeltaStreams initiative. This will be released as  
a standalone class SystemUpdates, in the category/package System- 
Updates , and it is intended to complement the use of the bzr  
repository as a basis for sharing work.

Keith

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100121/6635a0c5/attachment.htm