3.6 "full" packages

Ned Konz ned at bike-nomad.com
Mon Jul 28 17:47:00 UTC 2003


On Monday 28 July 2003 10:16 am, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> Ned, don't you think that MC's ability to detect missing
> dependencies and prevent code mangling and walkbacks in its
> installation process means that it is worth using as an installer
> wherever possible?

I am not arguing against using MC. I am arguing that it's a heavy 
dependency for someone who just wants to load a package (and not 
maintain it) from SM.

I think that using a stub to load the .mcv files is much superior to 
filing in their exported .st format (which also does none of the 
above).

And then if they load Monticello later, they can re-load the .mcv file 
(or the SAR) and maintain the record of their local changes.

I suggest giving the user a choice: either load Monticello first 
(which the SARInstaller can offer to do) or use the stub installer 
and get the equivalent of the .st filein behavior.

As for the other things you mentioned:

Detecting missing dependencies: the stub can detect missing classes if 
desired. I was thinking about having the stub batch the definitions 
so that a partial load wouldn't happen.

Prevent code mangling: in what way? The SARInstaller handles line end 
mangling.

Prevent walkbacks: which ones?

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list