[Squeakfoundation] SqueakMap in the image (was Re: Incorporating removals & KCP stuff)

[Doug Way]

So in other words, I think we should be able to go ahead and add  
SqueakMap to the current image?  It will certainly be part of the Basic  
image, and would probably toward the end of the list of items removed  
from the Minimal image (after most development tools, Morphic, MVC,  
etc., are already removed).

We will simply "promise" not to use the main update stream to change  
code that resides in packages.  The only exception would be SqueakMap  
itself, which I guess also happens to be a package.  But I don't think  
that's a major problem... yes, the update stream may include major  
upgrades to SM (such as SM 1.1) which simply overwrites the old package  
in the image.

(Then there's Andreas' new stuff which supports update streams on  
individual packages, which I haven't looked at closely yet... I'm not  
sure if that would make a big difference for this particular case.)

- Doug Way


On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 10:21 AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> Once and only once - code that affects packages should be distributed  
> in
> no other way than by being in the package.
>
> This important for two reasons -
> 1. The package owner really should be the only one that decides about
> code that goes in his package.
> 2. If packages depend on active Harvesting of all their stuff, that
> slows down the maintainance of base itself, and the evolution of all
> packages. The opposite of what we want.
>
> Part of this is removing concerns from the Harvesters. The maximum they
> should worry about packages is that when packages are updated that
> affect a certain image brand (base, full), the maintainer of the image
> should have the option of making the package update itself. Of course,
> this can be done easily if SM in the image, which is not a problem for
> Base and Full.
>
> Daniel
>
> John M McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 04:22  AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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...
>>
>> Well any way to change the update stream logic to consider packages.
>> Then the update stream
>> could update packages if they are installed, otherwise they get
>> skipped. Later if you load said package
>> and rerun the update, it might go back and re-apply updates as needed
>> based on which packages
>> are now loaded?
>>
>> --
>> ====================================================================== 
>> ==
>> ===
>> John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
>> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.   
>> http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
>> ====================================================================== 
>> ==
>> ===
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Squeakfoundation mailing list
>> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation