On Aug 4, 2006, at 9:33 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:

>>> NBut honestly don't regard this is a "basic" image... it has lots  
>>> and lots of stuff in it that is not needed, FFI is just one of  
>>> these.
>>> We will not do a "full" image this time (people can just install  
>>> the packages they want, and a 'full' image would have needed
>>> to be done and tested months ago).
>>>

I agree.

>>> So just consider it to be the new "full" image...

I don't.

>>
>> So it's back to kitchen-sink. How disappointing. How very, very  
>> disappointing.
>

So whereas I value a lot the work of Marcus and Co. doing a basic  
image, I also do not agree calling this image a "full one".
On the other hand I think Marcus was provocative to find out who is  
willing to produce a "full one" right now.

For doing so we need to agree, if it is Tweak or whatever, to be  
integrated.
For that, I think we need to know, where squeakland is heading: Will  
they use tweak for Etoys 2.0 or not?
In my opinion the goals of squeakland always defined the upper layer  
of Squeak.

Or is it Squeakland waiting for squeak-dev, and squeak-dev waiting  
for squeakland? Catch22...

My 2 cents,

Markus

>
> I do not understand what you are saying. Don't we make progress?
>
> For the moment we want to create a **stable** and robust image.  
> After that people can really try to remove packages. You know very  
> well that this is a difficult task. So we will remove FFI. I will  
> certainly have a look at other packages that can be easily removed.
> Now do not hesitate to participate, we cannot harvest all the fixes  
> as we did alone and shrink the image....
> and more....

> I think that smart people understand the value of what we have been  
> doing over the last year. I would have loved to do more but so far  
> this is what we could.

>
> Stef
>
>
>