<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Am 06.01.2011 um 00:29 schrieb Chris Muller:<br><blockquote type="cite">I don't mean to be dumb, but what is a "clean" package? And, what is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a Obsolete PackageInfo?<br></blockquote>May I refer you to my explanation here?<br><a href="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-October/154839.html">http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-October/154839.html</a><br><br>I took the name obsolete PackageInfo from Andreas' message #flushObsoletePackageInfos. I think it could be named better, though, flushNonMonticelloPackageInfos maybe?<br><br><blockquote type="cite">The purpose of this is to ensure we don't introduce new unwanted<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">package-dependencies by, for example, adding a new class reference or<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">something?<br></blockquote>The purpose is to fix 6 of the 8 failing PackageDependencyTests in people's trunk images. (The 7th #testSUnitGUI is fixed by Graphics-bp.173 and Morphic-bp.505 in the inbox.)<br><br>The assumption behind this is that the update process should keep working. In my opinion people should neither be required to start from a new 4.2 image or do an agressive clean up, i.e. Smalltalk cleanUp: true.<br><br>In other words:<br>1. Take the latest trunk image: Squeak4.2-10779-alpha.image.<br>2. Update it.<br>3. Run PackageDependencyTest. You get 8 failures.<br>4. Execute this:<br>PackageOrganizer default<br> unregisterPackageNamed: 'PackageInfo';<br> unregisterPackageNamed: 'ToolBuilder';<br> unregisterPackageNamed: 'Morphic-TrueType'<br>5. Run PackageDependencyTest. You are back to 1 failure. (Morphic now depends on Help-Squeak-TerseGuide.)<br><br>All I tried to do is to fix failing tests for the release. ;-)<br><br>I hope it is a little clearer now.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Bernhard<br><br><blockquote type="cite">On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Bert Freudenberg <<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On 05.01.2011, at 12:03, Bernhard Pieber wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">It just occurred to me that the broken tests can be fixed if the following is put to the trunk as a postscript or preamble:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">PackageOrganizer default<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> unregisterPackageNamed: 'PackageInfo';<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> unregisterPackageNamed: 'ToolBuilder';<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> unregisterPackageNamed: 'Morphic-TrueType'<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">That might be less controversial than forcing #flushObsoletePackageInfos on every image. Bert?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Maybe PackageDependencyTest should be made less whiny? By default it should not complain about those packages. You only want to ensure that a release image is clean, not every working image.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Perhaps unit tests aren't the best way to ensure a clean release. They're supposed to exercise code. ReleaseBuilder does some sanity checks already, maybe it should also check for clean packages.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">- Bert -</blockquote></blockquote></body></html>