On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Randal L. Schwartz
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> wrote:

> Maybe PU is the closest to CPAN we have.  So the question is, do we keep
> mutating PU into what I'm looking for?  Or do we first need to agree that the
> CPAN might be a pretty darn good model?

It might be easier to add dependency information to SqueakMap.  I
don't have an opinion about that.  I just wanted to point out the
features of PU that made me prefer it.  I'd be happy if every Squeak
packaging system had those features.  And if there was a single system
that had the best of all possible features.

CPAN is probably a good model.  However, a model that works well for
one language does not always work well for another.  How would you
think a CPAN-like system would handle the fact that people are using
3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 and that some packages work for all of
these, but some packages are specialized for a particular image?

-Ralph