3.6 "full" packages

Colin Putney cputney at wiresong.ca
Mon Jul 28 02:32:06 UTC 2003


On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 06:06  PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

>> What exactly is the problem with Monticello? I don't know of
>> any issues with it.
>
> Two problems:
> a) .mc files cannot be loaded into a plain image without loading the  
> full
> Monticello enchilada first. If there's any other way of publishing  
> files in
> a way that make it compatible with images containing Monticello or  
> not, then
> I don't know it.
>
> b) Monticello is "beta" which probably means that lots of interfaces  
> are
> still subject to change. Not a problem for the developers but a  
> problem for
> people (like me) who don't care about developing it but just want a
> reasonable mechanism which can be used to ship packages. If the  
> interfaces
> change every couple of months it means you're constantly trying to play
> catch up with the latest set of changes.

A few days ago, we made a "1.0" release of Monticello. The interfaces  
are pretty stable; I expect most of the work in the near future to go  
into new types of repositories.

See the link below for the announcement, and the rest of the "[ANN]  
Monticello Versioning" thread for more details.

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003-July/ 
063015.html

If all you want to do is load a package into an image, Monticello  
provides an "export" command that does a conventional fileout of the  
package. You can post that on SM or stick it in a sar as usual. That  
said, Monticello isn't really a packaging tool. It's a versioning tool,  
which may not be what you're looking for.

As far as I can tell, the problem you and Tim ran into is a bug in  
SARInstaller, which I *think* Ned has fixed. Try loading the  
enhancement he posted in this message, or perhaps updating to the  
latest SARInstaller on SqueakMap.

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003-July/ 
062887.html

Cheers,

Colin



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list