I'm not sure I understand, is this deliberately ignoring all integration problems ?
No, I am saying use Monticello for handling integration problems. If you load one multipackage software system (MPSS) from SqueakMap and another different MPSS has a earlier version of one of the same prerequisites, you open up a Monticello browser, load the specific one you want, run the test cases, etc.
If these two MPSS's really have a purpose together in the same image then you are developing yet a new MPSS based on these other two. Monticello is the appropriate tool for assisting with that integration (not SqueakMap).
Once you've got them together you can easily post your own *new* MPSS to SqueakMap which combines the function of the other two.
What if you need two packages from separate developers, they have to agree on what they include on each side ?
Not at all. You cherry-pick what YOU need from each for your stuff.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Damien Pollet damien.pollet@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:
We don't worry about conflicts between package versions loaded from SqueakMap because that requires deliberate package integration in which you use Monticello, not SqueakMap. The maintainer will update his dependency list soon enough if we make publishing to SqueakMap easy. I added a "BuildSar" button to Monticello Configurations browser so I could at least build the SAR in one-click, which I then have to manually upload to SqueakMap.
I'm not sure I understand, is this deliberately ignoring all integration problems ?
What if you need two packages from separate developers, they have to agree on what they include on each side ?
-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet