I think my suggestion would be more palatable to folks concerned about tidiness:

  - Strip Installer of all features that can be handled by Gofer.
  - Make Installer USE Gofer for those things that Gofer does
(Monticello packages).
  - That way folks like Miguel can have only Gofer loaded, old fogies
like me can have Installer+Gofer loaded.

One question that came to my mind last night:  What does > 1000 lines
of Gofer code bring to Monticello-loading that I can't already do with
just Monticello?  or with a couple of facade methods added to plain
MC?



2010/12/15 Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si>:
> Hi guys,
>
> Cross posted to Squeak and Pharo.
>
> On 14. 12. 2010 22:56, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>
>>> Lukas maintains Gofer
>>> and there are reasons to use it: closer relationship with Pharo, contemporary MC integration (Metacello).
>>
>> I can accept using Gofer in trunk, for things that require it like reading it's own scripts.
>> But I don't want to see Installer go away... because of all the things Installer does that Gofer doesn't.
>
> What if someone:
>
>  1. adds to Gofer loading from SqueakMap and other
>  2. then Lukas is kindly asked to rename it to the Installer.
>
> That way we will have a maintained installer with a meaningful name and
> everyone will be happy. Because we really need one and only one
> installer for both Squeak and Pharo.
>
> Best regards
> Janko
>
>
> --
> Janko Mivšek
> AIDA/Web
> Smalltalk Web Application Server
> http://www.aidaweb.si
>
>