Another important aspect, which i missed.
That LPF is a script.
Its intentionally made so, that you could try adopt it and load MC
into very obscure environment.

Let me remind you, that our 'holy grail' of modularity is to have a
minimal kernel with
basic classes and compiler, while rest is optional.
In this terms, LPF project is a highly valuable piece, which fits just
well with such concept:
you can build an image from first principles
starting from kernel and then up to the image which could load MC
packages and up to an image which having the rest in the squeak world.

So, i really hope, that efforts which took by Keith and Matthew and
other contributors will not be put in vane.
And therefore making a call to a anyone who could volunteer to support
and maintain this project for the benefit of both Pharo and Squeak
communities, and many other forks.

2009/10/21 Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com>:
> I had chat with Matthew today, and he said that he could turn his head
> back on MC 1.6 for a bit.
> But he doesn't guarantees that he can spend much time on it, so i
> asked him first, to
> write the small report - an overview, which lists the problems its
> having and in what way they can be solved.
>
> Then, i hope, someone could pick up the task and make it available.
>
> Next thing is a clarification about LPF from its respectible developer(s):
> LPF is an 'MC 1.6' , in terms that its a main tool which provides
> means to load & install MC 1.6 in *your image*.
>
> By *your image* i meant that LPF is not targeted for a particular
> squeak version or its fork - it attempts to target as many of them as
> possible.
> And this means, that LPF (along with MC 1.6) could serve as a common
> ground for many existing squeak versions and its forks.
>
> And this means, in own turn, that it is in our best interests to make
> it adopted. :)
>
> In a future, i suggest to use a better naming for a projects, like
> LPF, or make name to be more elaborate (like LPF - the MC 1.6
> bootstrapper) because its confusing the people up to the point that
> they don't understand why it is so good to have it.
>
>
> 2009/10/21 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse at inria.fr>:
>> I would love to have that.
>> I started to migrate some 1.5 code (fast loading) from MC15 to pharo
>> MC15 but nobody have a look
>> at the slice I published
>>
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>> Hello people,
>>>
>>> i'd like to see some answers about the fate of MC 1.6. and its current
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> 1. I think everyone wants to have an atomic loading.
>>> But according to my knowledge, MC 1.6. has some problems with Traits,
>>> which prevets us from using it & fully replace the older version.
>>>
>>> 2. Besides of that, are there any other reasons to not have it?
>>>
>>> So, please, can we disscuss (friendly & constructive), what we might
>>> need to have it integrated in Squeak and in Pharo, so
>>> we could benefit from having an atomic loading?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> Pharo-project at lists.gforge.inria.fr
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> Pharo-project at lists.gforge.inria.fr
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.