"Pavel Krivanek" <squeak1 at continentalbrno.cz> writes:
> On 17 Oct 2006 10:49:11 -0400, Lex Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > It is just painful reading Stephane's description of package slices.
> >
> > Why not use Package Universes to organize a collection of package
> > versions?  There would be a 3.10 release universe.  The release team
> > would know the update password, and they could update that universe
> > with new package versions as they see fit.
> >
> > Just give me the word, and I'd be happy to set up a server for you to
> > experiment with.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong but I think that we need firstly better package
> format. Now we are not able to create versioned packages for
> everything we need.


I believe the package format per se is not what we lack, but a good
system for recording and sharing the available packages and their
dependencies.

Now, maybe we talk past each other a little bit.  But, SqueakMap and
Package Universes record a lot of information about packages, even
though those packages might not include the information themselves.
For example, it is no problem to record dependency information in the
package-sharing system, even when the packages themselves lack that
information.


Anyway, I could be wrong, but I believe our current suite of package
formats is just fine.  For sure, Package Universes seems to do just
fine using the usual suspects: Monticello, changesets, fileouts,
Morphic projects, etc.


-Lex