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

[goran.krampe at bluefish.se]

Hi all!

Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> I just wanted to mention that the idea of including the SM bootstrap in 
> the update stream sounds reasonable to me.

Ok. Of course we need to get the details straight here before we do
anything.

> 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.

Good. This point is IMHO important, see below.

> 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.

This proves my point even more! As far as
"cutting-stuff-out-and-turning-them-into-packages" we *are* moving
towards Minimal.

BUT - we should install those packages back in (those that belong in
Basic that is) so that the end result is a not-yet-but-anyway-Minimal
image + the packages considered to belongto Basic.

So, no - we aren't straying IMHO. We are doing it exactly right: We cut
out packages that are easy to cut out (and it doesn't really matter in
which order we do it because *everything* will eventually turn into
packages) and we simply install them back in if they belong to Basic.
Simple as that.

Now - the question is: Should we issue updates that install packages
back in or should we simply maintain a Basic-loadscript that is a tad
smart and simply makes sure all packages that belong to Basic are
installed? I think I vote for the latter. We could of course issue an
update that alerts the user of this loadscript and asks if it should be
installed. And later - we can issue updates that check if that
loadscript is installed and in that case simple "reinstalls" it so that
any newly cut out stuff gets installed back in.

regards, Göran