I think one thing that would go a long way toward making things easier
is for the standard packaging tools (Monticello, Monticello
Configurations, Universes, SqueakMap) to be delivered in **stable,
working conditions** in base Squeaks downloaded from squeak.org.

The packaging systems are how Squeak users take the base environment
and enrich it with other packages.  Therefore, it is crucial that
these systems at least be able to LOAD things.  Unfortunately, this
did not occur for a time in public (squeak.org) Squeak releases.

But please help me understand something:

> SqueakMap: Packages are out-of-date, because the security model
> does not allow anyone to maintain the package; also, there are
> no dependencies

As far as being out-of-date that's a human issue, not a software one.
SqueakMap has a list of "Co-maintainers:".  So what is the security
model limitation you are referring to?

Also, dependencies are not really needed with SqueakMap because it is
superceded by SAR processing.  A SAR can do anything, like check if a
certain dependent package is loaded, ask if you want a newer version,
etc.  For Magma, its as simple as loading all of the dependent
packages automatically from within the SAR script.

SAR allows something to be deployed exactly as the creator wants it to
be.  The install script can pop up starting screens, documentation,
etc.

I'll add, SAR works in 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, (3.10?), Croquet, etc.  Do the
other packaging systems?

> Universes addressed the dependency issue, but still does not
> allow widely distributed maintenance of the packages. So far,
> it is kept mostly up-to-date, due to a few motivated
> individuals.

By "addressed" do you mean it put a UI on it?  I did that too by
simply adding a button to Monticello Configurations called, "Build
SAR".  You make your configuration and, in one click, you get a SAR
file deployable on SqueakMap.

Universes tries to make a "model" out of the dependencies is that
right?  It portends to keep a record of "what works with what else"
but that question is really ambiguous and impossible to answer
universally or correctly isn't it?  Besides, running a successful
*Test Suite* is my indication that packages are still working after
I've loaded another package, not the official declaration by a package
tool "works with XYZ".

Also, does Universes support, say, calling out to an external Internet
site during package installation to grab latest resource files like
SAR does?

My other gripe about Universes is the UI; it puts the software in
charge of the user, forcing me expand and scroll a tree, manually
hunting for a package whose name I already know.  Isn't there a way to
*search* for a package?

> Sake/Packages is an attempt to address both of the above
> concerns. It as yet has no UI. Unlike in SM or Universes, the
> entire distribution is versioned as a whole, rather than the
> individual packages, so editing one package means making a new
> distribution version. This makes it easy to specify exactly what
> version of the database your image is up-to-date with, but does
> not scale if there are many contributions.

But "many contributions" would simply be accumulated before versioing
up an entire distribution wouldn't it?  Just like Magma's process
today; I post multiple individual packages to squeaksource multiple
times before posting another Configuration..?