On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 07:43 PM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> I am trying to keep up with all this so bear with me here.
>
> If I understand this correctly Monticello has it's own format that can
> not be loaded without Monticello being installed (sounds fair) and can
> also export a package in simple .st format - but such a file can only 
> be
> filed in normally without any of the nice Monticello functions, unlike
> DVS which could do "intelligent" installation of a .st file. Right?
>
> First of all - is it really that important to be able to install a
> package in an old Squeak? If you want to cater to old Squeaks - why not
> simply offer a .st fileout too? An old Squeak wouldn't know how to do 
> an
> intelligent upgrade of an installed package anyway.

Indeed backwards compatibility can be really simple with a visitor 
walking over the monticello
declarations :)

>
> Regarding silently installing packages: NO. Please NO. I know that
> people are sick of me talking about the upcoming SM but we should NOT
> install prereqs silently. And we should NOT have such logic in
> loadscripts. But I know - as long as SM1.1 isn't here people are 
> allowed
> to cheat. Just don't get used to it.
>
> And finally: What should I do? It sounds like I should add installation
> support in SM of course. If someone has an SMInstaller whipped up I am
> happy to receive it. Otherwise I can possibly fudge it myself.
>
> Monticello is still listed as Beta so I don't think we shiuld include 
> it
> in Squeak 3.6 "Basic". People will just need to install it first.
>
> regards, Göran
>