On 16-Dec-2008, at 4:23 PM, Keith Hodges wrote:
>
>>
>> The kinds of conflicts I've found are _TRIVIAL_ to find.  Just LOAD
>> EVERYTHING.  If you can't then something MUST be kicked out of the
>> PU.  Someone can fix the conflict later if they want the official
>> "release" PU to include that something.
> Unfortunately that's an unrealistic test for Package Universes.

Hopefully you mean this only in the context of what you say below.

> There are sometimes two versions of the same or similar item, e.g 3
> different Magma installations.
> Sometimes more than two versions of the same thing are present for
> various reasons.
> And finally you cant load 3 different Monticello's with Monticello.


Well as I read the design goals for PU, there were not supposed to be  
multiple versions of things in a given PU now where there.  Indeed  
various comments in the archives about the failure to meet this goal.

Practically though what I really meant was obviously to select just  
the most recent version of everything.  That's time consuming with the  
current interface, especially with the pollution of so many deprecated  
versions of most packages, but not incredibly that hard to do, and I'm  
sure someone who knows the PU implementation could automate it in  
nearly a heartbeat.

I'm absolutely stunned that this most basic test has not been done as  
the minimal go/no-go test for every official "release" PU.  Given the  
emphasis in the community on unit tests it's stunning that they are  
also not a go/no-go requirement for any official release too (image &  
PU, of course).

The tools are there!  Why aren't they being used?

-- 
					Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc.
					<woods at planix.ca>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20081216/7008a5ce/PGP.pgp