On Feb 4, 2005, at 3:42 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:

> Hi guys
>
> today I wanted to load the new version of SmallWiki and I need to load 
> comanche.
> I took a new image 3.7 and I TRIED TO LOAD Comanche, but I should be 
> some idiot
> that I could not.

At least the SM description for Comanche makes it clear that it is 
deprecated (and not compatible with 3.7), and tells you to load 
KomHTTPServer instead.  Although your post makes me think that maybe 
someone just fixed this description in the last couple of days because 
of your post. :-)

So yeah, one problem is that some packages aren't maintained regularly 
and are sometimes listed as being compatible with some Squeak version 
when they are really not.  (Often, they are compatible with an early 
alpha version, say, early 3.7alpha, and marked as compatible at that 
time, but then they're not compatible when 3.7final is released, and 
the marking is not changed.)

It seems like Lex's Universes idea partly solves this problem.  I have 
to admit at first that I didn't "get" the difference between Universes 
and simple filtering-by-version in the SMLoader, which is similar.  The 
big difference is that anyone can "mark" a package version as being 
3.7-compatible (and also compatible with a group of other packages), 
not just the package owner, by adding it to the universe.  This may 
seem like a minor thing, but it really makes a huge difference.

> After spending 15 min, I realized because I wrote  a how to long time 
> ago that in fact this was KomHTTPServer that should be loaded (Of 
> course what an idiot I'm) and then after I got a lot of messages about 
> dependencies not working, and then I got an error message that some 
> stuff were not resolved.......ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
> HOW DO I KNOW? WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO BE  AN EXPERT OF THE PACKAGING of 
> Comanche to use it.
>
> So imagine a guy coming to squeak.... What a fucking day. When I 
> imagine that I have been presenting Squeak and seaside at least 5 
> times over the last month and that people will face this kind of 
> problems, I'm SAD.
>
> So my question:
> 	- why there is a comanche entry if we cannot do anything with it?
> 	- when SqueakMap will have dependencies? Because if this dependency 
> model is
> 	so cool I would have only to click on SmallWiki2 and get everything 
> loaded.

Yeah, we really do need some kind of real dependencies scheme.  Let's 
make it a priority for 2005! :-)  Although there are other 
high-priority items, such as dividing the image into clearly defined 
packages.

- Doug