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

[Daniel Vainsencher]

[Add SM into 3.6 using update stream to do package installation]
Sounds good to me. BTW, you mentioned the current update stream seems to
be leading to Minimal. I think that at least for 3.6 it should be
leading us towards Basic.

[packages for Basic, like DVS, SAR]
IMO Basic should include PackageInfo, because it is a useful unit of
filing stuff in and out that (a very lightweight replacement for one
function changesets get abused for). DVS and SAR I am less sure about.
In particular, DVS seems like it might be temporary, in the sense that
the Monticello stuff will replace it as infrastructure. OTOH, maybe I'm
just faliing to realize the benefits of how easy it is to issue an
update that installs/uninstalls well-packaged stuff. Which, BTW, we need
to define and start paying attention to - stuff that doesn't uninstall
cleanly is badly packaged, and should not be included in Basic.

Daniel

goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> Ok, back to the issue at hand: SM. And IMHO DVS, SAR and Package Loader.
> And perhaps one or two more I am forgetting right now. My reasoning
> above may sound like I don't want to introduce SM into the image - but
> in fact I do. :-) But not as "just another changeset". I want them
> *installed as packages*.
> 
> What this means in practice is the following:
> 
> We should issue updates through the update stream that installs these
> puppies using SM! The SM bootstrap changeset (the one that you get if
> you do the "Open packag loader") makes it look like SM itself was
> installed through SM (though of course it wasn't).
> 
> I know that Scott Wallace earlier argumented to put SM into the image -
> and I strongly objected. I still object to simply "filing it in" just
> like *any changeset*.
> 
> In short - we can issue an update that simply runs the bootstrap. We can
> keep the bootstrap code in place for a while.
> 
> > (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.)
> 
> I don't think so. I may try it out but I can't see how they have
> anything to do with us just yet. That package could OTOH be a candidate
> for Basic of course - just like DVS, SAR etc.
> 
> Phew - so what do you all say? Does my analysis above sound reasonable?
> I find it strange that it seems so hard to define what things are - we
> really are creatures of habit. Hard to let go! :-)
> 
> > - Doug Way
> 
> regards, Göran
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation