Diego Gomez Deck <DiegoGomezDeck at ConsultAr.com> wrote:
[SNIP of problem]
> Any ideas?

I am all ears. But SM2 will change this - there the package cache is
situated below "sm" which IIRC isn't stored as an absolute path.

> OT: Why SM depends so much on the file system? Why we don't use the
> image? IIRC more than the 50% of the bugs in SM are related in
> directory/file system handling. LET'S FORGET THE FILE SYSTEM PLEASE!

Well, a cache outside of the image of downloaded artifacts tend to end
up there.

Caching stuff inside the image makes it non available to the other
images. :)

Sure, we could use Magma or some other backend for the package cache -
but IMHO those technologies aren't stable enough yet. And SM is (and
will be) designed to be lightweight - that is also why I don't want a
dependency on say Magma.

regards, Göran