Diego Gomez Deck <DiegoGomezDeck at ConsultAr.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
> > 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.
> 
> I agree with this point.  And SM has to be lightweight enough to run
> WITHOUT a file system.

Good point. I will take this into account during my work with SM2. It
will have to wait until SM2.1 though, but it has been noted. :)

regards, Göran