Colin Putney <cputney at wiresong.ca> wrote:
[SNIP]
> > It's in some ways related to the loadscripts talked about in the 
> > SqueakMap context but loading from Monticello repositories.
> 
> No, right now there's no way to group packages in Monticello. It's 
> probably something we'll need at some point, but right now I feel like 
> we don't have enough experience using Monticello to know how exactly it 
> should work. Maybe SqueakMap2 will help with this. If you have any 
> thoughts, please share them.

Yes, SM2 will make the picture very different. First of all it contains
a proper file package cache. Then it also keeps track of package
*releases*. And finally it has the ability to associate "meta data" to
the package releases (and to other things too in fact).

One obvious (and planned) use for the metadata facility is to associate
what I have called "package configurations" to package releases. That
would then evolve to a full dependency system. *But*... that is not
included in SM - that is a *separate* system.

> > I'm wondering, what is the Monticello equivalent for something like 
> > Envy Configuration Maps or Store Bundles?
> 
> As Ned mentioned, you can stick mcz files into a sar for distribution. 
> But Monticello doesn't know how to operate on groups of packages.
> 
> Colin

And hopefully (at least I hope that) dependencies etc are more properly
taken care of in the SM context. One obvious reason is that Monticello
is just *one* format for packages. Dependencies should be handled
generically for all formats IMHO.

regards, Göran