<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Very good. Is it the same simpler traits as pharo?<br></blockquote><br><br>What's your point?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I write and maintain packages for users in both squeak and pharo, surely my point is obvious, I don't want extra work, and I dont want to have to maintain separate code bases.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> I was just hoping for a simple answer, "yes" would be good. I wasn't being cynical, I was just interested to know.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div> I responded to your false statement that the process "can only build a monolithic image". I'm not talking about cross-fork compatibility here.<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><br></div><div>I can unload packages from any image with Sake/Packages, I dont need the trunk process for that, but lets see your process build an image without Monticello, or with Morphic3, or Rio instead of FileDirectory.</div><div><br></div><div>Basically you are not able to offer anything fundamentally different from what has gone before, I don't want File/Directory in my image I hate it with a passion. My entire motivation for hacking the core in the first place is to get rid of FileDirectory.</div><div><br></div><div>"Fail to plan plan to fail", I think the saying goes.</div><div><br></div><div>Keith</div></body></html>