[ANN] stable package universe for 3.9

Lex Spoon lex at cc.gatech.edu
Mon Dec 4 10:04:24 UTC 2006


"Edgar J. De Cleene" <edgardec2001 at yahoo.com.ar> writes:
> Lex Spoon puso en su mail :
> 
> > Incidentally, if anyone does get KeyMapping working, could you repost
> > it a nice self-contained Monticello package (or set of packages)
> > instead of a single smart SAR?  We should not need SAR's for
> > package-universes installation, because you have a dependency
> > mechanism available.  Smart SAR's can easily be too smart for their
> > own good.
> 
> I really don't understand the against SAR "fashion".
> If you have something what works why try to use something what not?
> You are one of my top Squeakers for learn , but this time disagree.

If, yes, but only if.

First, SAR's add no new useful features once you have a working
dependency system.  Or am I mistaken?  Second, in practice they are
used to solve missing dependencies, and the way they do it is often
fragile.  Third, they lack the ability to uninstall.

Put "smarts" where they will work, and otherwise be dumb.  SAR's were
a simple and elegant solution before we had Monticello and Package
Universes.  Nowadays we have these new tools, and the smartness of
SAR's is a risk more than a help.

Feel free to prove me wrong, of course.  I am mainly speaking from my
experience of looking at SAR's posted on SqueakMap.

-Lex




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list