[Vm-dev] VM packaging for Cog transition

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 09.11.2010, at 19:25, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:

> On Tuesday 09 Nov 2010 10:50:50 pm Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> was asking how to name that cog/stack vm binary. I don't see a reason to
>> have both cog and stack VMs on one architecture officially.
> What if Cog VM chokes on existing image files? There has to be fallback. x86 
> environments are very diverse. It is hard to foresee vm/image combinations.

Sigh. You're reading selectively ;)

We *are* going to have an interpreter for existing images. This has nothing to do with the stack/cog vm.

>> On x86 it
>> would be cog, on everything else stack VM for now. The question is, should
>> that difference be reflected in the binary name? Is it desirable to have
>> both cog and stack VMs installed next to each other? Would people be
>> confused if there is no "cog" binary on their architecture?
> I feel the difference should be reflected in the name, just like in qt3 and qt4.
> 
> Subbu

That is certainly one option. "squeak4" would be the interpreter and "squeak5" would be stack/cog. John's Mac VMs already use that scheme.

- Bert -