> My suggestion is that only an image which includes standard
> packages alone should be called a core image (and then only
> if one is needed? Would it be needed?). I'd reserve the
> term kernel image for the types of images Eliot and others
> are discussing.
> 
> - Zulq

All images discussed here have some kind of trouble.
And yes, I agree on standard packages as several mentioned before.
But again I ask going forward and think about a Class repository as I using for reloading all "missed classes" when some .morph or .pr coming of different fork is dragged and drop or selected via file list in SqueakLightII.

This Class repository could be easily produced for any fork.
We could agree on the common ground between forks and could be easier fix or improve the code of only a Class and not of a bigger package.

And a script for generate a valid image could load from this Class repository , like others Smalltalks do

Edgar


      Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/