José Luis Redrejo wrote:
> 
> I must insist in one point: I'm not interested at all in the use of
> Squeak for developers. Developers usually don't have problems in
> launching a terminal if there're problems and know how to make things
> work. My packaging effort is focused in end users, mainly teachers and
> students.

This is fine. But besides users, there are developers. I can confirm
that many developers appreciate the fact that they can install a given
tool (erlang, coq, whetever) in a hassle-free way:

	apt-get install what-I-need

Even developers. Developers want to *use* a given programming language.
C-programmer wants to invoke gcc. He does not want to compile the gcc
with its four-stage recompilation process beforehand he wants to use it.

Erlang programmer wants to *use* erlang interpreter and the available
libraries. He does not want to build the VM and compile the libraries
when he starts Erlang programming.

Etc.

> I think that can explain some of the decissions I took in the
> script that launches the image, and that forked several years ago from
> the script that squeak.org <http://squeak.org> was using. On the other
> hand, once the vm has started, there's not difference in the vm from
> Debian or the vm from Squeak.org. It's compilation is almost the same. I
> just apply a couple of patches to the sources, one to fix a bug in the
> browser plugin directories and another to remove ffmpeg support that can
> not be considered free in Debian as it contains some patented algorithms
> and code.
> 
> If there's something I can do now to improve the package in Debian I'm
> ready to do it, but I haven't read in this thread any suggestion yet,
> appart of the fact that there is three packaging versions, and that the
> package in Ubuntu doesn't work.