2009/12/16 K. K. Subramaniam <subbukk at gmail.com>

> On Wednesday 16 December 2009 11:47:50 pm José Luis Redrejo wrote:
>
> > b) has caused the current delay in Debian, because I've been waiting for
>  6
> > months, just in case anybody wants to help. I've already given up, so I
> >  will upload the latest version before the end of this month. Before the
> >  setting up of the collaborative project I kept the squeak-vm very
> updated
> >  in Debian. In fact  I used to compile it from svn, to get the latest
> >  patches, trying to make the images work with the newest plugins.
> José,
>
> What do you think of the new launcher scripts - squeak and squeak.sh? Do
> they
> have enough flexibility for a distro packager?
>
>
squeak.sh has the same problem I've discussed once again in this list for
the last four years: they are developer focused. I don't have anything
against a developer view, but I want the squeak packages being end-user
friendly. I'm very focused/biased on the educational uses of Squeak, and I
don't think a console script is a good idea these days.
I will integrate the changes these scripts have, so the one I use in the
package can be called from a terminal, but I want to keep the gnome/kde and
mime integration I added to the squeak-vm package.




> Building plugins is currently painful, I agree. Perhaps there should be two
> packages - squeakvm  (runtime) and squeakvm-dev (plugin development).
>
>

The problem comes when new etoys images do need those plugins to work
properly, and they are just experimental works somebody does and nobody
maintains later.



> (branching this discussion to vm-dev)
>
>

I'm subscribed to vm-dev, so no cc'ed is needed.

Regards
José L.


> Subbu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20091217/ec370ebc/attachment.htm