On 5/15/2010 12:21 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
> What if we had Configurations-Supported and Configurations-Unsupported, so
> that, even if we were not vouching for them, or maintaining them, the
> community would have a place to share what they learned about getting other
> projects to work?
>
> For example, I've been porting interesting projects (SVI, KeyBinder,
> Applescript,...) to both Pharo and Squeak trunk.  They are nowhere near the
> standard, and may never get there, but it would be great for users to know
> how to load them if they so choose, without leaving the image.

We can discuss this, but I'd like to point out that *because* it's 
unsupported, there needs to be a fence that you gotta hop over before 
you can install these unsupported packages. The issue being that the one 
of the biggest complaints about the existing solutions (Universes and 
SqueakMap) are that between all of the unsupported (non-working) stuff 
it's too hard to find the pieces that do work.

Really, I'd rather encourage you to have your SVI, KeyBinder, 
AppleScript as a *supported* packages because it means you're providing 
a conflict-free, tested set of packages that we can automatically test. 
I don't see "supported" packages only to be those that virtually 
everyone uses - I think "supported" packages should be inclusive.

Cheers,
   - Andreas