[Vm-dev] Re: [squeak-dev] [ANN] VMMaker metacello config for
Squeak and Pharo
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Fri Feb 5 23:18:17 UTC 2010
Torsten Bergmann wrote:
> Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Let's be a bit careful before jumping heads-on into the Metacello
> Somehow I knew before that you will respond like this ... ;)
Right. And that's the problem with prejudices. If you expect a response
of a certain form you'll find a way to interpret what's being said to
match your expectations even though the intention may have been
What I was saying to David, not to you, is that we need to make sure
that we don't introduce any undue dependencies on Metacello. Given the
dependencies of Metacello itself I think there is an actual risk of that
happening and I simply wanted to remind David that it's important for us
to make sure VMMaker doesn't require Metacello.
BTW, it is unfair to spam your message to both Squeak-dev and the Pharo
list just to paint me as a nay-sayer in the community.
>> I don't mind if people choose to use Metacello to load VMMaker
>> but it shouldn't be the only option.
> Hey - Metacello is "just" a package management tool for Monticello using
> descriptions of the dependencies and the versions that fit together.
> Anything I did was to create such a configuration.
> Nobody forces you or other developers to use Metacello - having
> such an (additional) config does not change the way you are working
> right now. Use Monticello, SqueakSource, ... as you did before. You can
> continue to use build scripts, installers, SqueakMap, Universe,
> whatever ... to load VMMaker.
> But currently I dont see none of these "loaders" is well maintained (or only
> with private scripts), anything I've found was a decription from David (see last mail) on the web. And how often does one ask which packages in which version fit
> together to get VMMaker or other Squeak projects to work. Try to rebuild the
> SqueakSource server and you know what I'm talking about!
> Providing and maintaining a metacello spec is simple and works. And the
> interesting thing is that someone (Dale) is actively maintaining this tool
> on several Smalltalks - even for Squeak.
> And as Fernando responded on the pharo list:
> "And the ConfigurationOfXXX is allowing a new form of communication , unthinkable
> just a couple of months ago...."
> Metacello easily allows to have reproducable builds for projects, applications, images ...
> (see http://astares.blogspot.com/2010/01/pharo-10-release-candidate-2-and-image.html)
> Someone requires VMMaker in a specific version - just point him to "ConfigurationOfVMMaker" and you are done.
>> Myself for example, I use customarily a variety of images, none of which
>> support or are supported by Metacello.
> Two things
> - this has nothing to do with Metacello. Your images dont have to have Metacello.
> So it is just an additional configuration, so why will you bother - it will
> not affect the way you worked before
> - it is not the problem of the Squeak community if you use non-Squeak images
> to build VM's. As community we all have to assure that VMMaker and its loading
> (with or without Metacello) is well known and works on standard images and
> the loading and VM building is reproducable by ANYONE!
> Does the term "Truck Factor" ring a bell?
> At least your images seem to be able to use Monticello - so why lament.
> You can continue to work as before and if David could invest a minute
> to save others from annoying questions about VMMaker loading everything
> is in good shape and even free's some time in the long term.
>> It would not be good if we require Metacello to load VMMaker.
> Is the Linux project in trouble when one create's and publishes a CD with
> linux packages that fit together? No! Same applies here. You should really
> have a look first before commenting on Metacello...
More information about the Vm-dev