Am 13.02.2005 um 05:49 schrieb Doug Way:

>
> On Feb 8, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>
>> Hi Goran,
>>
>>>> ...Desires about a loadable Morphic package...
>>> Yes, this is of course a very good end goal. Just don't get upset if 
>>> it
>>> turns out to be too much work. I can settle for a Morphic cleaned up 
>>> a
>>> bit. :)
>>
>> What I'm doing is an eToys-free Morphic. Not sure if my work is of any
>> use in the big image.
>>
>>>> I am volunteering for developing and maintainig the Morphic package.
>>>> I'm sure someone will volunteer for developing and maintaining the 
>>>> eToys
>>>> package. (Or maybe they all decide to move move to Tweak).
>>>
>>> Great! It has been noted. We (Doug and I) will be putting 
>>> PackageInfos
>>> into the stream pretty soon and then we can register corresponding SM
>>> entries. But we will take care of that.
>>>
>>> And Juan - you need to contact Ned Konz. Or let me rephrase that - 
>>> you
>>> *must* contact him. :)
>>> Ned is our eToys/Morphic guru, and he has also volunteered to Steward
>>> those parts.
>>>
>>> So please, pretty please with sugar on top - make a team with Ned. 
>>> Ok?
>>
>> Sure. Will do. I'll write him to see how my ideas fit into his.
>>
>>>> I really can't work with eToys in. If the community chooses to keep
>>>> the big base image, at least I will need to fork, and just keep 
>>>> using
>>>> my 3.7 eToys freee image.
>>
>> This is the most important thing I have to say. If the standard image 
>> includes
>> eToys I'm not sure how what I'm doing fits there. Anyway, I'd like an
>> "official" decision on this topic. I'm not sure if it should be from 
>> you, from
>> all the guides or from some sort of voting.
>
> If our plan to partition the image succeeds, then it wouldn't matter 
> so much whether the standard image contains eToys.  Well, it depends 
> on what you mean by "standard" image... I'll say it means the image 
> which the update stream follows, which is the Basic (developer) image. 
>  (I would say that Basic eventually would probably not contain eToys, 
> but it's not really an obvious decision, since eToys is a form of 
> "programming".)
>
> But anyway, if^H^Hwhen we go ahead with the partitioning, at the end 
> of it there will *also* be a Minimal/Kernel image which won't include 
> Morphic or eToys.  Then you can add the Morphic package (without 
> eToys) to that image if you want.  I think that's what you're looking 
> for.
>
> So in other words, partitioning (separating) eToys from Morphic sounds 
> like a fine idea, and we will need your help doing it!  Separating the 
> entirety of Morphic (including eToys) from everything else may be a 
> more immediate priority for us, though... but if you want to get 
> started early on splitting eToys from Morphic, we won't stop you. ;)  
> Well, you would need to coordinate with the various other folks in 
> charge of Morphic.

I doubt that you could untangle etoys from Morphic in a way that still 
allows them to be loaded back in. At the very least it would require a 
major effort to do so.

Mind you, I'm not arguing against doing this (the next etoys is 
Tweak-based anyway), just be aware that you might loose etoys for good.

- Bert -