Question of clarification:

What do you mean by a 'rehydrated image'?

--HH

On 7/28/13, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 08:26:18AM +0100, Frank Shearar wrote:
>> On 28 July 2013 07:24, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>> > I noticed that the VM tarball jobs on build.squeak.org (InterpreterVM
>> > and
>> > CogVM jobs) have been failing for some time. These jobs use the latest
>> > trunk
>> > image from the SqueakTrunk job, which is supposed to be a base Squeak
>> > image
>> > updated from the trunk stream (see
>> > http://build.squeak.org/job/SqueakTrunk/).
>> > However, that image is missing the ST80 package entirely (which
>> > indirectly
>> > causes the VM tarball job failures).
>> >
>> > I tried to update the image (world menu -> help... -> update code from
>> > server) in hopes that this would load the missing packages, but this
>> > fails
>> > due to some other problem.
>> >
>> > The project comment for the SqueakTrunk job says:
>> >
>> >  * Take a base image (currently 4.5-12565), update it, archive the
>> > result.
>> >  * Run the entire suite of in-image tests.
>> >
>> > I think that I had mistakenly assumed that the "SqueakTrunk" job was a
>> > release
>> > image updated from the trunk stream, but actually it must be a stripped
>> > "base"
>> > image with packages reloaded, and maybe the reloading part has forgotten
>> > to
>> > install ST80. Is that right?
>>
>> Yes. ReleaseSqueakTrunk contains a rehydrated/full fat Squeak image
>> _with_ ST80 and friends loaded.
>>
>> Sorry! I should have noticed the failing builds and connected that
>> with the recent stripping of ST80.
>>
>
> Not at all, it was not obvious that this was connected to the problem.
>
> I guess that once the package reorganizing settles down, it would be
> good to have some kind of sanity-check test to ensure that a rehydrated
> image contains the expected set of packages.
>
> Dave
>
>
>