Lex's universes are distributions (was Re: package universes and filters question)

lex at cc.gatech.edu lex at cc.gatech.edu
Wed Aug 11 19:14:23 UTC 2004


Hannes Hirzel <hirzel at spw.unizh.ch> wrote:
> The general connotation with the term 'universe' is that it is something
> big, all-encompassing which is rather misleading in this case as we
> actually speak of groups of packages which have been tested together.

Actually, the main property of a package universe is that it is
all-encompassing.  When you are operating within one package universe,
then there are only certain packages that you and your tools see at all,
at least so long as you stick with the no-hassle installation tools.

And typically, a package universse is also large.  At example would be
the set of newest versions of everything on Squeakmap that is marked for
Squeak 3.7.

So in general, I am happy to use other terms, but "package universe"
seems to capture what I am after, and I don't know what else to call
these things.  In particular:


> This paragraph leads me to the conclusion that you speak of different
> distributions.

Linux distributions are close and are the inspiration.  However, I worry
that the people who do actually know that term, will think I am talking
about "Red Hat" or "Debian".  Not quite.  I'm talking about "Red Hat
9.0" and "Debian/sid".  Debian calls this a branch, I think.

That is, "Slackware is a Linux distribution" sounds correct, while
"Slackware is a package universe" is not what I have in mind.   Assuming
Linux people are using the term correctly, I don't think a distribution
is the same as a package universe.  A "branch" in Debian is a package
universe, but who has heard of that?


> We are back at the discussion of the various types of images
> (basic, developer, kitchen-sink etc.)

I don't think that's the same issue.  Typically a mature universe would
have associated with it multiple pre-loaded images to start from, and
all of those pre-loaded images would draw packages from the same
universe.  Starting in any of those images, you could open a package
browser and see the same set of packages available.

In fact, you'll be happy to know that I reuse a term here: I have called
such a subset of packages a "configuration", just like the SqueakMap people.
I'm not a total sinner.  :)


> Not bad, but why don't you relate to that  discussion?
> I think it _is_ a good idea to bring this up again now and to come
> up with different preconfigured sets of packages.
>
> But for doing so a strategy of testing how the packages
> which go in one distribution (universe as you like to call it)
> work together?

I am intentionally ignoring things like this.  They are certainly
important, and I expect that they will be improving for a long time into
the future.

The explicit universes stuff I am talking about is what you are developing
by doing the above things.  What do you test?  A package universe.  What do
you get after the testing and fixing is done?  A good package universe.




-Lex



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list