Am 11.02.2004 um 21:10 schrieb Doug Way:

> goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
>
>> Hehe, that is also true - we need to issue an update that installs 
>> SM2.
>> That would essentially be the same as running the "SqueakMap" 
>> loadscript
>> - but not *exactly*, because it opens a package loader at the end.
>>
>> I can look it over and produce a new one as a .cs with a postscript
>> later today.
>>
>
>
> The same issue applies to the rest of this thread... whether we want 
> to be loading SUnit as a Monticello package from SM.  (It would be 
> loading from SM, right?  Or would it be SqueakSource or something 
> else?)

I cleaned up the mess of Sunit entries on SqueakMap: Now there's only 
one (SUnit). But this points to SqueakSource for now. I
can change that. I need to try the new "release from monticello" 
feature: Does this store the .mcz directly on SqueakMap?

> Adding the Monticello installer in Basic is another issue which 
> Michael & others posted about before.  I'm personally fine with adding 
> it.  That may make Monticello a defacto standard and it may viral 
> itself into a lot of code, but the same is true of changesets, and if 
> MC is a good addition/successor to the changeset format, maybe that's 
> a good thing.  (Life would be pretty difficult if we insisted on not 
> having ChangeSets or anything else as a standard, for example. :-) )  
> I'm still not totally clear on where the dividing line between MC and 
> PackageInfo is, I need to play around with MC more.  But it sounds 
> like we want the fuller capabilities of MC.
>
I need to think about this some more...

         Marcus

--
Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de