[squeak-dev] Re: Release packaging
Levente Uzonyi
leves at elte.hu
Fri Apr 29 15:07:05 UTC 2011
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Ben Coman wrote:
> Hannes Hirzel wrote:
>> I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a
>> Cog and an non-cog?
>>
>> --Hannes
>>
>> On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>>
>>> Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't download
>>> VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the
>>> releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is faster
>>> than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for Pharo
>>> and the interpreter vm for Squeak).
>>>
>>>
>>> Levente
> Is the difference between a Cog and non-Cog VM just the a different exe (for
> windows)?
Basically yes, some plugins are also different, but from the user's point
of view it's just a different executable on all platforms.
> How compatible are the images for Cog and non-Cog? Could two executables be
In case of released images, only Squeak 4.2 is Cog compatible, because
Cog was released shortly after the release of Squeak 4.1. But applying a
few changes to a Squeak 4.1 image (that's what Pharo developers did to
Pharo 1.1 to release Pharo 1.1.1) will make it Cog compatible.
This intermediate release seemed unnecessary for Squeak, because with a
change of a preference and a single click (update) one could make her/his
image Cog compatible.
> included in a single All-In-One package - ie named like SqueakClassic.exe &
> SqueakCog.exe ?
Yes, it's possible, Cobalt is already packaged this way.
Levente
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|