> I'm not sure I understand, is this deliberately ignoring all
> integration problems ?

No, I am saying use Monticello for handling integration problems.  If
you load one multipackage software system (MPSS) from SqueakMap and
another different MPSS has a earlier version of one of the same
prerequisites, you open up a Monticello browser, load the specific one
you want, run the test cases, etc.

If these two MPSS's really have a purpose together in the same image
then you are developing yet a new MPSS based on these other two.
Monticello is the appropriate tool for assisting with that integration
(not SqueakMap).

Once you've got them together you can easily post your own *new* MPSS
to SqueakMap which combines the function of the other two.

> What if you need two packages from separate developers, they have to
> agree on what they include on each side ?

Not at all.  You cherry-pick what YOU need from each for your stuff.



On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Damien Pollet <damien.pollet at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We don't worry about conflicts between package versions loaded from
>> SqueakMap because that requires deliberate package integration in
>> which you use Monticello, not SqueakMap.  The maintainer will update
>> his dependency list soon enough if we make publishing to SqueakMap
>> easy.  I added a "BuildSar" button to Monticello Configurations
>> browser so I could at least build the SAR in one-click, which I then
>> have to manually upload to SqueakMap.
>
> I'm not sure I understand, is this deliberately ignoring all
> integration problems ?
>
> What if you need two packages from separate developers, they have to
> agree on what they include on each side ?
>
>
> --
> Damien Pollet
> type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
>
>