ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> > The packages themselves do not know the dependencies - that is correct.
> > But the load scripts are not meant to deal with that.
> >
> > Load scripts are either dynamic or static.
> >
> > A static load script always produce the same result. It is typically an
> > ordered series of "SM commands" to install specific package releases. I
> > guess it is similar to a "bundle", but the packages aren't "in" it, 
> > only
> > referenced. And it is a script, so it can execute arbitrary Smalltalk
> > code.
> 
> Yes bundle groups that so that I can give you one bundle and you get
> everything. A bundle is a group of packages.

Yes, but... well, read below. :)

> > But finally - the thing that deals with dependencies are the "package
> > configurations". A package config is simply a Set of prerequisite
> > package releases. Similar to a load script, but they aren't "scripts"
> > that can be run - instead they are declarative in nature. Simply a Set.
> 
> It seems to me that you want to have a lot of variation points
> and we will see in practice if we need that.
> 
> I have the impression that there too much concepts there.

The thing is that yes, in an *ideal* world we only need package configs.
But this is not an ideal world. So I think load scripts may come handy.

Finally, we can't "avoid" load scripts because .st files is a supported
package format on SM.
So the functionality (load scripts) is already there - and has been
there since the start.
The difference is that they are much more useful in SM2 because you can
refer to specific releases.

[SNIP]
>  From the conceptual point of view you want package (with dependencies 
> express in configmaps)
> to have better flexibility but why would you need load scripts. After 
> you will use package that are empty
> and just define a configMaps and you will get group of packages.
> 
> My feeling is that load scripts are mechanisms.

As I said - we already have load scripts. I can't forbid them - .st is a
supported package format.

Of course, when we finally have package configs etc, they will hopefully
be less and less used - but I still think "distros"/"image builder
scripts" (very high level packages) will be load scripts because they
can be interactive.

> Thanks for your answers.
> 
> Stef

regards, Göran