MC in basic (was: Re: A roadmap for 3.9)

lex at cc.gatech.edu lex at cc.gatech.edu
Mon Dec 13 17:45:59 UTC 2004


"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Raise your hands if you see a pattern. If we add Monticello we get:
> 
> 3.9-basic+MC     1825                 40434
> 
> Finally we're on par with 3.5 again - which coincidentally was the version
> of Squeak where people complained bitterly about all the excess baggage that
> SqC had put into Squeak. So then we put VMMaker, Games, Celeste, Balloon3D,
> Wonderland, Scamper into packages. Only to replace them with m17n,
> SqueakMap, SUnit, Tests, (and soon) Monticello in basic.
> 

Good point.  However, surely should include the package system that is
used to load and unload all the other stuff.  What is the point of a
Base image where "Monticello" is a prerequisite to loading anything
else?

I don't know what to do about the basic image getting larger.  It sucks
mightily.   Even so, surely it cannot be right to keep stumbling along
with changesets as our packaging approach.  Surely our basic package
system should at least have "unload" available.


Let's all keep in mind, by the way, that the Basic image is not supposed
to be a *minimal* image.  It is supposed to be something like: an image
with the basic development tools pre-loaded.

-Lex



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list