> I think I'd agree with Stephen that ImageSegments would be good,
> assuming of course that you've got any support for them surviving. If
> not... maybe you've gone too far.

	Yeah, that's the thing... I think the ImageSegments support as it is
right now would be overkill (and too big). I think I'll end up with a
lightweight version of it when I'm done with my current work, though.

> Another plausible approach would be to rework the compiler support so
> that it _can_ be dropped easily and reliably; then one would use a
> minimized image that has compiler(s), add the stuff one needs for the
> end use and cut loose the compiler stuff. As I've said before I find
> removing stuff much more troubling than adding stuff but if there is
> a single well defined package to make removable then it may be worth
> the work.

	'Hope so.

> Yet another approach is a cross compile. Since you have great
> remote image manipulation voodoo already working, how about compiling
> in the 'support' image and sending the result to the 'remote' image?

	Hmm, this would certainly be doable.


	thanks,

-C

--
Craig Latta
http://netjam.org/resume
craig at netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]