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

[Doug Way]

I just wanted to mention that the idea of including the SM bootstrap in 
the update stream sounds reasonable to me.

And...

On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 12:27 PM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

> Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
>> [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.
>
> Well, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. And these things are hard to
> reason about. What I meant is that the update stream feeds updates that
> is producing the Minimal *image*. BUT... with the packages installed
> turning it defacto into Basic.
>
> If we said that the update stream is aiming to produce Basic then...
> What does that mean? Does it mean that we aren't "packageifying" the
> stuff that we intend to have in Basic? Nope. PackageInfo is a package.
> And so is SM.
>
> IMHO this means we are in fact working towards Minimal when we consider
> the *image* (without installed packages) but if we consider *with
> packages* then we surely are aiming for Basic.

Yeah, I suppose.  I guess it depends on whether you consider the 
"image" to include these installed packages.  Practically speaking, the 
packages are in the image file, they just weren't added via the update 
stream. :-)  But I see your point.

One other side issue... we may or may not want to move straight to the 
Basic image and then the Minimal image after that.  For example, you 
could argue that SUnit should be part of the Basic image.  (It is a 
pretty fundamental development tool, although it's not one of the 
traditional ST80 tools.)  In that case, we've already strayed from the 
Basic image by removing it.

- Doug Way