Avi Bryant wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Doug Way wrote:
>  
>
>>Either way I will add SM & company Real Soon Now (hopefully tonight).
>>    
>>
>
>FWIW - I would recommend that you *do* include PackageInfo, but don't
>include DVS, in the current image.  If people want/need to use DVS, they
>can load it, if they want to use Monticello instead (which IMO does
>everything DVS does much better), they can just load that.  If they just
>want to file out packages, they can do that with the base PackageInfo
>stuff.
>

I understand that PackageInfo is the important thing to standardize on, 
not necessarily DVS.

But I think we have a number of packages on SqueakMap that currently 
rely on DVS?  (Or is PackageInfo sufficient?)  Well, my understanding is 
that they can usually be installed without DVS, but if DVS is not 
available then methods may not get removed properly.  Perhaps this is 
good enough, I'm not sure.

But as a general rule I don't want to require that people have to 
remember to install DVS before installing various packages on 
SqueakMap.  (Yes, eventually with SM 1.1 this could be handled via 
dependencies, but that's a ways off.)

Perhaps if we add DVS to the base image it could be considered a "useful 
default implementation" rather than a "standard"? :-)  Does DVS also 
include a bunch of CVS-specific junk that we don't want?  (Also, would 
Monticello be able to read DVS-format st files?)

>What might be useful is some very simple UI for filing out packages,
>similar to the DVS UI, but without the FileIn part, that would go with
>PackageInfo.  This would probably make people more likely to use the
>packaging conventions than if they have to use a workspace doit like
>
>(PackageInfo named: 'Foo') fileOutOnStream: (FileStream fileNamed: '...')
>

Would something like this be in a separate PackageInfoGoodies package 
which could go in the base image so that we could leave out DVS?

- Doug Way