Dependencies in Monticello?

Jason Johnson jason.johnson.081 at
Sun Jan 13 20:48:36 UTC 2008

Well, I just thought using a Universe would be simpler then some kind
of configuration script.  Then when you decide a new version is ready
for prime time you can press a couple of buttons in the Universe
browser instead of updating a script.

Though it sounds like this isn't simpler for you, and that was what I
was really wondering in my query.  I wonder if something could be done
to change that and make it easy enough to do that it would be a
productivity boost for you.

On Jan 13, 2008 9:18 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert at> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 19:14 +0100, Jason Johnson wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2008 5:52 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert at> wrote:
> > >
> > > Nowadays I do not use any monticello dependencies. For deployment
> > > I hardcode the versions into a Installer script.
> >
> > Have you looked at Universes?  If so, what made you decide not to use
> > them?  Is there something missing/also annoying?
> >
> I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean using the online universe
> or maintaining my own? In either case it isn't practical for me.
> - I can't use online universe. On my production system I have to
>   have control over the versions being installed.
> - I wouldn't use my own universe. What could I gain by adding
>   the complexity of universe.
> This is only a short answer. If you like I can elaborate on this.
> I use universe only for first time installs. For anything else
> it is rather useless for me. Most prominent use case for me is
> to keep my squeak-dev image up to date :)
> Norbert

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list