Full image for 3.9? (was Re: Celeste status)

Bernhard Pieber bernhard at pieber.com
Sun Feb 19 19:52:09 UTC 2006


Marcus Denker <denker at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> The other thing is: Do we really want a "full" image in the sense that
> we had it in the past? I tend to never use it, when I need an app that's
> normally in full I just install it. Much more important would be a  
> "developer" edition, with RB, Shout, eCompletion...

I recently wondered how to find out what packages are officially in
"Full" but not in "Basic".

When looking around I found the package FullImage-Tools with the class
Full38ImageBuilder 
and the method #packageSpecsOfficialFor38. This method lists:
- Monticello
- YAXO
- Games
- Network-HMTL
- Scamper
- Celeste
- IRCe
- VMMaker
- Vassili's Regex
- Shout
- Balloon3D

However, at least Monticello is already in the 3.9 Basic image.

Then SqueakMap has a Package group called Official package in Full. It
lists:
- 3.7 Full Assembler
- Balloon3D
- Benchmarks
- Celeste
- DefaultExternalDropHandler
- ECoDE Design Environment
- FullImageProjectAlice
- FullImageProjectSmalltalkIntroduction
- FullImageProjectSqueakPresentation
- Games
- HelpViewer
- HTML
- MCInstaller
- Monticello
- MultiSelectionInLists
- Network-HTML
- SARInstaller for 3.6
- Scamper
- SUnit
- Traducciones al Espanol
- VMMaker
- YAXO

This seems a little inconsistent. Who will decide? The new board?

Personally, I would find it very sad if we would not have a full image
for 3.9. Those 
projects are great for demoes, e.g. Games and Alice. At least this is
what I show interested 
people. I would even say the fuller, the better. So I would include the
RB engine, 
eCompletion and other cool goodies. (I'd even vote for including the RB
engine in Basic.)

And I find it very important that everyone uses the full image in the
beta phase, to
make sure it is usable when the release is done.

Cheers,
Bernhard



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list