[Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff

[goran.hultgren at bluefish.se]

Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> Maybe it's worth reconsidering having the SM package be included in the
> base image. I'm of the opinion that it's a reasonable piece of bootstrap
> code. This also allows to have updates of the style "get/update package
> X", which will be important as soon as we start maintaining images
> composed of packages that change on SM.

This was the thing I was mulling over earlier. I sortof got the feeling
that SM will become more and more important and harder and harder to be
"without".

BUT... Let's stop and think for a second. We will release Minimal,
Basic, Full. Ok. Basic ought to include SM, right? I mean as a package?
It isn't a part of Minimal of course.

So the current 3.6a image is in fact the image that is slowly becoming
Basic. Today it is more or less Full - but we are chopping into it and
working it down to Basic.

But the update stream is only used for code not in packages. It can only
"expect" an image that doesn't have SM. Aargh. My head spins.

Need to think more...

regards, Göran