[squeak-dev] [CI] Unloading a package programmatically?

Frank Shearar frank.shearar at gmail.com
Fri Sep 9 11:33:40 UTC 2011

On 9 September 2011 12:23, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, so, here's what we're gonna do. Sort out how to unload it when there's
> more people awake:)
> It's seriously like six or seven classes in one category. There *must* be a
> way to do this using... Smalltalk.
> Frank: No, the idea is that you archive the image, and it becomes the next
> trunk image, so that I don't have to make them by hand anymore:) and then
> you also have a release image ready to rock when all the features are in and
> the tests are clean.

I guess we're talking about subtly different things: I'm looking at
the problem of "can I assemble an image that passes its tests?" and
you're looking at the problem of "the latest trunk image passes its
tests". But then isn't the right thing to do this?:
* get the latest trunk image
* run its tests (like from a starter script passed into the image on
the command line)
* report the results (which would require a TestRunner capable of
dumping Hudson-friendly XML, which is probably what the Hudson tooling

Hm. But you COULD write a script that loads whatever build
infrastructure you need, couldn't you?:

Installer whereever
    install: 'The build tools'.

"Insert stuff causing the test runner to run and send its output to stdout"

It's not _quite_ what we want, since Hudson reports that the image
_plus_the_extra_bits_ passes its tests (or not, of course). Pretty
close, though.


> I'm not installing Gofer over this, I don't need it for anything in the base
> system. Unloading seven classes or whatnot should not be a major problem,
> I'm just going to have to figure out how to do it. If I have to I'll just
> install it with a change set so that MC doesn't see it. Then I can just tell
> the system organizer to drop it or whatnot. I'm sure this will be doable.
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>> On 9/9/11 12:58 AM, "Casey Ransberger" <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This is to rid the build tools from the produced artifact, a nice touch.
>>>> Since
>>>> we don't have Gofer in Squeak, is there an easy way to do this?
>>>> --
>>> Port Gofer to Squeak, get rid of all another loaders (Universes,
>>> Installer,
>>> SqueakMap),etc.
>> Gofer is an API for Monticello. Installer is a general purpose
>> (un)installer tool, SqueakMap is a package catalog. So no, we won't get rid
>> of them. Universes is abandoned and SqueakMap has similar capabilities, so
>> we'll probably remove it from the system.
>> Levente
>>> So you was closer to Pharopatas way of work and avoid many troubles
>>> Cheers.
>>> Edgar
> --
> Casey Ransberger

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list