On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

> And what about the issue Andreas brought up nicely summarized by Ned?
> (DVS can handle .st fileins pretty nice. Monticello can not. Right?)

Well, hang on now.

You've brought up a couple of times this magical ability of DVS to update
.st packages instead of just filing them in.

But that's not strictly correct.  DVS can update DVS packages, not
arbitrary .st files.

Monticello can do the same thing with Monticello packages.

So, yes, if you want to treat DVS packages "nicely", then you have to have
DVS installed.  If you want to treat Monticello packages nicely, you have
to have Monticello installed.

I don't see this as an argument to automatically load DVS any more than an
argument to automatically load Monticello.

There are currently more DVS packages than there are Monticello packages
on SqueakMap.  However, once we iron out the kinks of using Monticello as
a distribution format, I bet those numbers would shift pretty quickly.

So, like Ned, I recommend that DVS not be auto-installed.

Avi