[Squeakfoundation]Re: Basic tenets of what goes in the image

[Doug Way]

On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 04:07 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se 
wrote:

> Doug Way <dway@riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> ...
>> We still want to have this concept of a "base release", which will be 
>> the thing that we release as Squeak 3.4, 3.5, 4.0, etc., even though 
>> it will be composed of packages.  Of course, this release won't 
>> necessarily be the totally dominant form of Squeak that has been used 
>> by everyone in the past... other people/organizations may come up 
>> with competing releases/configurations, too, since it will now be 
>> much easier to do so.
>
> Right. The technical name for such a distro on SM would probably be a
> "load script". At least until we have more advanced concepts of 
> creating
> coherent package configurations - I am actually not building that into
> SM - the idea being that hey, it's just a new kind of resource/package
> which you can put up there. (I know my thoughts are hard to follow)

The load script concept sounds good as you describe it... a good way to 
do things until perhaps true package configurations are available.

Yes, the technical name for that can be "load script".  I was mostly 
just trying to think of what end-user-friendly name we should give to 
the stuff that used to be in the "base image"... "load script" doesn't 
sound like a great name in that sense.  Perhaps we could just call it 
the "base distribution" or "base release" or something like that.

(Even though this "distribution" would really consist of a kernel image 
plus a load script.)

> We could also post a "prebuilt" image like a resource named "Guide
> distribution prebuilt image 3.5".
>
> And if you want to build it yourself you simply download the "Guide
> kernel image 3.5", fire it up, install version 3.5 of package "Guide
> distribution bild script" and off it goes loading all the other 
> packages
> on top.

That might be good.  Perhaps "Guide distribution" would be more 
specific than "base distribution".  Either sounds reasonable.

> Ok, so given all this. Names like "distribution" or "build script" pops
> up. Perhaps there are other names for the "distribution" thing. The 
> name
> "load script" or "build script" does on the other hand sound like
> exactly what they are so they are pretty good IMHO.

Yes.

- Doug