Andreas wrote:

> Well, I don't *think* of it as SqueakMap but the comparison is somewhat
> appropriate. The main reason why I don't think of it as SM is that SM wants
> to be "all packages ever created for Squeak" but what we need is "all
> packages that we've actually tested to work in this image".

Every version of every SqueakMap package declares which image version
it is for.  In fact, it even includes additional tags such as whether
it makes any modifications to that base image.

Currently, there is no 4.2 entry in SqueakMap so, regardless of the
quality of this tag for past versions, there is an opportunity for,
going forward, to simply *test it* before posting it...

Not that that should really matter, given usual (MIT) license which
completely denies fitness for a particular puporse..

> And of course
> there are some other differences (like community ownership instead of
> individual ownership of the catalog elements)

To put this shallow shortcoming to rest, I have a mind to create a new
SqueakMap account called, "Community" and announce the password for it
here on this list:  "squeak"...

We can take charge behind the scenes to add "Community" as a
co-maintainer of all existing SqueakMap projects.  We can then
announce, on this list, "if you don't want your package to be
community-maintaintable, then remove Community as a co-maintainer."

Any unrepresented projects will, therefore, not have a advocate to
remove it and therefore keep  Community account as a co-maintainer.

> but other than that I agree;

That's it then?  Cool!!  Let's breakout the SqueakMap!  :-D

 - Chris