Squeakfoundation May 2003

squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org

18 participants
26 discussions

[fm #27534] (news-admins) Submission report - Squeak
by Steve Killen via RT 16 May '03

16 May '03

cg(a)cdegroot.com wrote (Thu, May 15 2003 11:10:49): > On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 17:45, Daniel Pearson via RT wrote: > > We don't have any record regarding who originally submitted the Squeak listing > > on freshmeat. > > > It was Ted Kaehler <Ted(a)squeakland.org>, it turns out. > > Anyway, Daniel, I have requested ownership of the project earlier today, > being the guy who currently takes care of public relations for the > Squeak project (for some value of 'taking care' ;-)). OK, I've approved your request. -------------------------------------------- Managed by Request Tracker

1 0

[fm #27534] (news-admins) Submission report
by Cees de Groot via RT 15 May '03

15 May '03

On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 17:45, Daniel Pearson via RT wrote: > We don't have any record regarding who originally submitted the Squeak listing > on freshmeat. > It was Ted Kaehler <Ted(a)squeakland.org>, it turns out. Anyway, Daniel, I have requested ownership of the project earlier today, being the guy who currently takes care of public relations for the Squeak project (for some value of 'taking care' ;-)). There's probably a new ticket to that effect in your RT queue. The original request came from someone we've never heard of in our community, but it did trigger a small discussion on the fact that the project's entry on FM was dangling. Regards, Cees de Groot ('cdegroot' on FM,Slashdot,SF,and probably one or two places I forgot) --- Headers Follow --- >From cg(a)cdegroot.com Thu May 15 11:10:48 2003 Return-Path: <cg(a)cdegroot.com> Delivered-To: news-admins(a)freshmeat.net Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.freshmeat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1724CBB17 for <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net>; Thu, 15 May 2003 11:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdegroot.com (tai42.xs4all.nl [80.126.80.66]) by mail.freshmeat.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D0AFECBB0A for <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net>; Thu, 15 May 2003 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 20811 invoked from network); 15 May 2003 18:10:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 May 2003 18:10:10 -0000 Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation][fm #27534] (news-admins) Submission report - Squeak From: Cees de Groot <cg(a)cdegroot.com> To: Daniel Pearson via RT <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net>, Discussing the Squeak Foundation <squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20030515154508.1400CCBB0A(a)mail.freshmeat.net> References: <20030515154508.1400CCBB0A(a)mail.freshmeat.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1053022209.14393.10.camel(a)home.home.cdegroot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 15 May 2003 20:10:10 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -------------------------------------------- Managed by Request Tracker

1 0

[fm #27534] (news-admins) Submission report - Squeak
by Daniel Pearson via RT 15 May '03

15 May '03

> Who is this person? I've never heard of them. This is a person who has a habit of requesting ownership of freshmeat project records that don't seem to be actively maintained by anyone. > Even more interesting, who did the Squeak listing on Freshmeat > originally? It's listed as N/A. As I recall, Ted Kaehler had done it > originally, but I could be wrong. We don't have any record regarding who originally submitted the Squeak listing on freshmeat. Sincerely, Daniel Pearson -------------------------------------------- Managed by Request Tracker

2 1

[fm #27534] (news-admins) Submission report - Squeak
by Joel Williams via RT 15 May '03

15 May '03

Please read the following notes regarding your project at freshmeat.net: - linux <penang(a)myrealbox.com> has requested ownership of the freshmeat record for your project. Do you approve this change? If you are not sure what this means, please see http://freshmeat.net/faq/view/46/. Sincerely, Joel Williams <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net> --- Headers Follow --- >From nobody(a)freshmeat.net Wed May 14 00:44:19 2003 Return-Path: <nobody(a)freshmeat.net> Delivered-To: news-admins(a)freshmeat.net Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.freshmeat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29321CBAA6 for <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net>; Wed, 14 May 2003 00:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freshmeat.net (www4.freshmeat.net [10.2.165.4]) by mail.freshmeat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E76CBAA6 for <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net>; Wed, 14 May 2003 00:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by freshmeat.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A883B41804A; Wed, 14 May 2003 00:44:18 -0700 (PDT) To: news-admins(a)freshmeat.net Subject: [fm #27534] (news-admins) Submission report - Squeak From: Joel Williams <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net> Message-Id: <20030514074418.A883B41804A(a)freshmeat.net> Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 00:44:18 -0700 (PDT) -------------------------------------------- Managed by Request Tracker

5 7

[fm #27534] (news-admins) Submission report - Squeak
by Ned Konz via RT 14 May '03

14 May '03

On Wednesday 14 May 2003 12:44 am, Joel Williams via RT wrote: > Please read the following notes regarding your project at > freshmeat.net: > > - linux <penang(a)myrealbox.com> has requested ownership of the > freshmeat record for your project. Do you approve this change? If > you are not sure what this means, please see > http://freshmeat.net/faq/view/46/. Who is this person? I've never heard of them. Even more interesting, who did the Squeak listing on Freshmeat originally? It's listed as N/A. As I recall, Ted Kaehler had done it originally, but I could be wrong. Ned Konz Squeak Guide > --- Headers Follow --- > > From nobody(a)freshmeat.net Wed May 14 00:44:19 2003 > Return-Path: <nobody(a)freshmeat.net> > Delivered-To: news-admins(a)freshmeat.net > Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by localhost.freshmeat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29321CBAA6 > for <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net>; Wed, 14 May 2003 00:44:19 -0700 > (PDT) Received: from freshmeat.net (www4.freshmeat.net > [10.2.165.4]) by mail.freshmeat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id > D2E76CBAA6 > for <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net>; Wed, 14 May 2003 00:44:18 -0700 > (PDT) Received: by freshmeat.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) > id A883B41804A; Wed, 14 May 2003 00:44:18 -0700 (PDT) > To: news-admins(a)freshmeat.net > Subject: [fm #27534] (news-admins) Submission report - Squeak > From: Joel Williams <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net> > Message-Id: <20030514074418.A883B41804A(a)freshmeat.net> > Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 00:44:18 -0700 (PDT) > > -------------------------------------------- Managed by Request > Tracker _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation -- Ned Konz http://bike-nomad.com GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE --- Headers Follow --- >From ned(a)bike-nomad.com Wed May 14 06:57:00 2003 Return-Path: <ned(a)bike-nomad.com> Delivered-To: news-admins(a)freshmeat.net Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.freshmeat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A400ECC297 for <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net>; Wed, 14 May 2003 06:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout.whidbey.net (mailout.whidbey.net [209.166.64.124]) by mail.freshmeat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B38BCC29A for <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net>; Wed, 14 May 2003 06:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vdsl-72-234.whidbey.net ([209.166.72.234] helo=ned) by mail3.whidbey.net with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Fwhs-00054Q-00 for news-admins(a)freshmeat.net; Wed, 14 May 2003 06:54:09 -0700 From: Ned Konz <ned(a)bike-nomad.com> To: Joel Williams via RT <news-admins(a)freshmeat.net> Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation][fm #27534] (news-admins) Submission report - Squeak Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 06:56:28 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <20030514074420.5A742CBAF2(a)mail.freshmeat.net> In-Reply-To: <20030514074420.5A742CBAF2(a)mail.freshmeat.net> X-Image-URL: http://bike-nomad.com/nedicon.jpg MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200305140656.28627(a)ned.bike-nomad.com> -------------------------------------------- Managed by Request Tracker

1 0

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff
by Daniel Vainsencher 09 May '03

09 May '03

Maybe it's worth reconsidering having the SM package be included in the base image. I'm of the opinion that it's a reasonable piece of bootstrap code. This also allows to have updates of the style "get/update package X", which will be important as soon as we start maintaining images composed of packages that change on SM. This is a separate (immidiately available) technique to maintain multiple images based on packages, before we have configurations. This might be valuable, if people are very concerned about not having the images other than base right now. For example, if someone is really bothered about not having the full media image right now. A hack, but one that takes the pressure off us getting configurations to work. Daniel goran.hultgren(a)bluefish.se wrote: > Hi Doug and all! > > Doug Way <dway(a)riskmetrics.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 08:19 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote: > > > > > I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and > > > remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other removals > > > either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it > > > over with, so we can go back to work. > > > > That sounds like a plan... I will just incorporate the 7 removal > > packages that had add-on packages that could be loaded properly, and we > > can do the others as they get fixed. > > Great. Perfect. > > Question: > > You wrote about how to make this into an update since SM isn't in the > vanilla image. > This seems like an interesting problem I haven't really thought about. > > When removing stuff from the image using the update stream eventually we > will cut off the branch we are sitting on. Somewhere along the way we > need to adjust how this works. > > Tricky. > > regards, Göran > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

3 2

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff
by Daniel Vainsencher 08 May '03

08 May '03

Marcus Denker <marcus(a)ira.uka.de> wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 02:19:57AM +0200, Daniel Vainsencher wrote: > > I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and > > remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other removals > > either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it > > over with, so we can go back to work. > >=20 > > Do that, I'll test vs. KCP, we load KCP, and then resume harvesting the > > regular stuff. > >=20 > > I think we need to find a harvesting-process that is more "parallel": I agree with the problem described, and maybe the solution. Can we delay this discussion for two months or so? we'll be much more experienced with this and wiser about what we can or can't do. [character pairs tricky] Review 5 things using this method, and then I will be very flexible to whatever you say. Ok? Daniel

2 1

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff
by Daniel Vainsencher 08 May '03

08 May '03

I see a couple of alternatives - 1. Doug uses the script on the swiki to get the changesets and adds the ones I approved to the update stream. I don't know how much more work this is than getting them off the list, might be easier. Doug? 2. KCP/MCP adapt the "send a changeset to the mailing list" code in the image ChangeSorter>>mailToList or something like that to send a bunch of changes to the list, and we can run it once every time we get a bunch of changes approved. Not much work, keeps this part of the process the same as regular harvesting and if done as multiple attachments in one mail it isn't much noise for the list. What do you guys say? Daniel Stephane Ducasse <ducasse(a)iam.unibe.ch> wrote: > Hi guys > > I'm a bit lost to know how to proceed. Our changesets are based on 3.5 > for now and they are available on the page. I do not see the need to > send them in the list now. > Daniel: noury did a pass and improved it ;) > > This afternoon we will have a discussion with the others here > > Stef > > On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 02:19 AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote: > > > I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and > > remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other removals > > either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it > > over with, so we can go back to work. > > > > Do that, I'll test vs. KCP, we load KCP, and then resume harvesting the > > regular stuff. > > > > Daniel > > > > Doug Way <dway(a)riskmetrics.com> wrote: > >> > >> (moving this to the SqF list since we're doing the final coordination > >> now...) > >> > >> Daniel Vainsencher wrote: > >>> > >>> Ok, I've gone through the KCP stuff. I know we orginally decided to > >>> do > >>> the removals first, but I had an urge, and this doesn't touch so many > >>> different classes that I'm very worried about clashes. Anyway, it > >>> seems > >>> as the designated reviewer for this specific project I got back from > >>> my > >>> vacation before the removals were done, and I don't see much reason > >>> not > >>> to merge these now, but I don't mind checking the conflicts if this > >>> proposal isn't accepted. > >> > >> Okay, we need to get moving on the KCP stuff and the removals now, so > >> we can > >> move on with the 3.6 plan (including the various enhancements we've > >> been > >> discussing). > >> > >> Here's what I would suggest: We incorporate the 10 removals first, > >> all in one > >> batch as Goran and I suggested. This would be very soon, let's say > >> tomorrow. > >> Then, Daniel can check for conflicts between the approved KCP items > >> and the > >> removals. My understanding is that there should be few conflicts. > >> > >> Then, the adjusted KCP changes can be incorporated (after having at > >> least the > >> preambles posted to the list as a sort of final review). If changes > >> need to > >> be made in a few of the removed packages to account for the KCP > >> changes, > >> perhaps Daniel could inform the package owners of the required > >> changes. > >> > >> > >> Anyway, I think doing all the removals in one batch is the way to go. > >> There > >> will be two types of problems we'll have to deal with: > >> > >> 1. Problems/bugs caused by the removals. These should be relatively > >> minor and > >> easy to fix, I'd think. > >> > >> 2. Problems/bugs/conflicts when re-loading any or all of the 10 > >> packages. > >> These problems will probably be more significant, but these problems > >> need to > >> be pushed back to the package owners at some point anyway. We're > >> moving to a > >> model where package owners need to maintain their packages against > >> base image > >> (prerequisite) changes, so we might as well start this now. It may > >> well be > >> that some packages (such as PWS) are not actively maintained and > >> become > >> obsolete because no one really uses them. If that happens, either a > >> more > >> active package maintainer will have to step up, or the package could > >> be > >> removed from "Squeak Official" status, which would remove it from the > >> public > >> release. > >> > >> > >> Before thinking about incorporating the 10 removals, I decided to do > >> some > >> testing. To remove the 10 packages, I gave Goran's removal script a > >> try. > >> That appears to work. > >> > >> Then I decided to try re-adding the 10 packages one by one into an > >> image to > >> get back to the "Full" release. I did it in this order, with the > >> following > >> results: > >> > >> 1. SUnit - Yes. > >> 2. BaseImage Tests - Yes. > >> 3. Celeste Installation - Yes. > >> 4. Games (and GamesTests) - Yes. > >> 5. VMMaker - No. Not auto-installable, but trying to download it > >> results in a > >> "MNU: download", even after setting the download directory. > >> 6. MacroBenchmarks - No. Couldn't find a MacroBenchmarks package on > >> SM! > >> 7. PWS Installation - Yes. > >> 8. Scamper - Yes. > >> 9. Speech - No. Installation results in a "MNU: arpabet". > >> 10. Balloon3D - Yes. > >> > >> So, we need to at least fix the loading problems with the three > >> packages > >> before incorporating the removals. > >> > >> Beyond that, ideally we'd also like to have Test packages for all 10 > >> of these > >> packages as well, which pass... right now only a few packages have > >> them. I > >> don't think we should hold up incorporating the removals for this, > >> though. > >> But we should probably try to have them available before we move to > >> 3.6beta, > >> at least. Marcus and I can work on bugging the package owners to > >> create these > >> Test packages. All future package removal/additions will have to > >> have a > >> corresponding Test package ahead of time so we don't get in this > >> situation > >> again. > >> > >> We still need to resolve the issue of how I should load the removal > >> script > >> without SqueakMap, SAR, etc., because those won't be there in the > >> vanilla > >> 3.6alpha image. Probably SAR is the only really important one... I > >> don't know > >> if any require DVS. I guess I'll just have to poke around with the > >> removal > >> scripts and make them into a series of regular file-ins. (An > >> alternative > >> might be to include SAR in the base image for now. SAR should > >> probably be > >> part of the Full and Basic releases anyway. Yes, we would end up > >> splitting > >> off SAR again sometime later as we whittled down to the Minimal > >> image, but so > >> what? Same probably goes for SqueakMap.) > >> > >> - Doug Way > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Squeakfoundation mailing list > >> Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation > > _______________________________________________ > > Squeakfoundation mailing list > > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation > > > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

3 3

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff
by Daniel Vainsencher 07 May '03

07 May '03

I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other removals either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it over with, so we can go back to work. Do that, I'll test vs. KCP, we load KCP, and then resume harvesting the regular stuff. Daniel Doug Way <dway(a)riskmetrics.com> wrote: > > (moving this to the SqF list since we're doing the final coordination now...) > > Daniel Vainsencher wrote: > > > > Ok, I've gone through the KCP stuff. I know we orginally decided to do > > the removals first, but I had an urge, and this doesn't touch so many > > different classes that I'm very worried about clashes. Anyway, it seems > > as the designated reviewer for this specific project I got back from my > > vacation before the removals were done, and I don't see much reason not > > to merge these now, but I don't mind checking the conflicts if this > > proposal isn't accepted. > > Okay, we need to get moving on the KCP stuff and the removals now, so we can > move on with the 3.6 plan (including the various enhancements we've been > discussing). > > Here's what I would suggest: We incorporate the 10 removals first, all in one > batch as Goran and I suggested. This would be very soon, let's say tomorrow. > Then, Daniel can check for conflicts between the approved KCP items and the > removals. My understanding is that there should be few conflicts. > > Then, the adjusted KCP changes can be incorporated (after having at least the > preambles posted to the list as a sort of final review). If changes need to > be made in a few of the removed packages to account for the KCP changes, > perhaps Daniel could inform the package owners of the required changes. > > > Anyway, I think doing all the removals in one batch is the way to go. There > will be two types of problems we'll have to deal with: > > 1. Problems/bugs caused by the removals. These should be relatively minor and > easy to fix, I'd think. > > 2. Problems/bugs/conflicts when re-loading any or all of the 10 packages. > These problems will probably be more significant, but these problems need to > be pushed back to the package owners at some point anyway. We're moving to a > model where package owners need to maintain their packages against base image > (prerequisite) changes, so we might as well start this now. It may well be > that some packages (such as PWS) are not actively maintained and become > obsolete because no one really uses them. If that happens, either a more > active package maintainer will have to step up, or the package could be > removed from "Squeak Official" status, which would remove it from the public > release. > > > Before thinking about incorporating the 10 removals, I decided to do some > testing. To remove the 10 packages, I gave Goran's removal script a try. > That appears to work. > > Then I decided to try re-adding the 10 packages one by one into an image to > get back to the "Full" release. I did it in this order, with the following > results: > > 1. SUnit - Yes. > 2. BaseImage Tests - Yes. > 3. Celeste Installation - Yes. > 4. Games (and GamesTests) - Yes. > 5. VMMaker - No. Not auto-installable, but trying to download it results in a > "MNU: download", even after setting the download directory. > 6. MacroBenchmarks - No. Couldn't find a MacroBenchmarks package on SM! > 7. PWS Installation - Yes. > 8. Scamper - Yes. > 9. Speech - No. Installation results in a "MNU: arpabet". > 10. Balloon3D - Yes. > > So, we need to at least fix the loading problems with the three packages > before incorporating the removals. > > Beyond that, ideally we'd also like to have Test packages for all 10 of these > packages as well, which pass... right now only a few packages have them. I > don't think we should hold up incorporating the removals for this, though. > But we should probably try to have them available before we move to 3.6beta, > at least. Marcus and I can work on bugging the package owners to create these > Test packages. All future package removal/additions will have to have a > corresponding Test package ahead of time so we don't get in this situation > again. > > We still need to resolve the issue of how I should load the removal script > without SqueakMap, SAR, etc., because those won't be there in the vanilla > 3.6alpha image. Probably SAR is the only really important one... I don't know > if any require DVS. I guess I'll just have to poke around with the removal > scripts and make them into a series of regular file-ins. (An alternative > might be to include SAR in the base image for now. SAR should probably be > part of the Full and Basic releases anyway. Yes, we would end up splitting > off SAR again sometime later as we whittled down to the Minimal image, but so > what? Same probably goes for SqueakMap.) > > - Doug Way > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

5 9

Incorporating removals & KCP stuff
by Doug Way 07 May '03

07 May '03

(moving this to the SqF list since we're doing the final coordination now...) Daniel Vainsencher wrote: > > Ok, I've gone through the KCP stuff. I know we orginally decided to do > the removals first, but I had an urge, and this doesn't touch so many > different classes that I'm very worried about clashes. Anyway, it seems > as the designated reviewer for this specific project I got back from my > vacation before the removals were done, and I don't see much reason not > to merge these now, but I don't mind checking the conflicts if this > proposal isn't accepted. Okay, we need to get moving on the KCP stuff and the removals now, so we can move on with the 3.6 plan (including the various enhancements we've been discussing). Here's what I would suggest: We incorporate the 10 removals first, all in one batch as Goran and I suggested. This would be very soon, let's say tomorrow. Then, Daniel can check for conflicts between the approved KCP items and the removals. My understanding is that there should be few conflicts. Then, the adjusted KCP changes can be incorporated (after having at least the preambles posted to the list as a sort of final review). If changes need to be made in a few of the removed packages to account for the KCP changes, perhaps Daniel could inform the package owners of the required changes. Anyway, I think doing all the removals in one batch is the way to go. There will be two types of problems we'll have to deal with: 1. Problems/bugs caused by the removals. These should be relatively minor and easy to fix, I'd think. 2. Problems/bugs/conflicts when re-loading any or all of the 10 packages. These problems will probably be more significant, but these problems need to be pushed back to the package owners at some point anyway. We're moving to a model where package owners need to maintain their packages against base image (prerequisite) changes, so we might as well start this now. It may well be that some packages (such as PWS) are not actively maintained and become obsolete because no one really uses them. If that happens, either a more active package maintainer will have to step up, or the package could be removed from "Squeak Official" status, which would remove it from the public release. Before thinking about incorporating the 10 removals, I decided to do some testing. To remove the 10 packages, I gave Goran's removal script a try. That appears to work. Then I decided to try re-adding the 10 packages one by one into an image to get back to the "Full" release. I did it in this order, with the following results: 1. SUnit - Yes. 2. BaseImage Tests - Yes. 3. Celeste Installation - Yes. 4. Games (and GamesTests) - Yes. 5. VMMaker - No. Not auto-installable, but trying to download it results in a "MNU: download", even after setting the download directory. 6. MacroBenchmarks - No. Couldn't find a MacroBenchmarks package on SM! 7. PWS Installation - Yes. 8. Scamper - Yes. 9. Speech - No. Installation results in a "MNU: arpabet". 10. Balloon3D - Yes. So, we need to at least fix the loading problems with the three packages before incorporating the removals. Beyond that, ideally we'd also like to have Test packages for all 10 of these packages as well, which pass... right now only a few packages have them. I don't think we should hold up incorporating the removals for this, though. But we should probably try to have them available before we move to 3.6beta, at least. Marcus and I can work on bugging the package owners to create these Test packages. All future package removal/additions will have to have a corresponding Test package ahead of time so we don't get in this situation again. We still need to resolve the issue of how I should load the removal script without SqueakMap, SAR, etc., because those won't be there in the vanilla 3.6alpha image. Probably SAR is the only really important one... I don't know if any require DVS. I guess I'll just have to poke around with the removal scripts and make them into a series of regular file-ins. (An alternative might be to include SAR in the base image for now. SAR should probably be part of the Full and Basic releases anyway. Yes, we would end up splitting off SAR again sometime later as we whittled down to the Minimal image, but so what? Same probably goes for SqueakMap.) - Doug Way

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Squeakfoundation May 2003