On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 07:51  AM, Stephen Pair wrote:

> I like the idea in general...here is a list of items I'd like to see 
> addressed (these are largely based on my experience in splitting 
> Comanche into separate packages and managing the packaging, publishing 
> and loading of those packages)...the Comanche packaging tools already 
> support several of these items...I think that the challenges that I 
> faced with packaging Comanche makes for a really good set of 
> requirements (for a development, packaging, and publishing system)...I 
> think we would end up with a really nice set of tools and frameworks 
> if we could make a goal of re-packaging Comanche using the new MC 
> features.  Here's the list of things that I think need to (eventually) 
> be addressed:

[ideas snipped]

Whoa. Those are all interesting ideas Stephen, but they have very 
little to do with Avi's proposal. This was *not* meant to address 
SqueakMap's lack of dependency managment.

The goal is to create a file format for Monticello-versioned packages 
that could also be distributed to end users who don't have Monticello 
installed.

I think it could address that goal quite simply, once we get a few 
details worked out.

Colin